Confrontation between Iranists (Indo-Europeanists) and Türkists in light of the DNA-Genealogy [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Proto-Shaman

12-12-2013, 03:17 PM

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."

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1450964_767270869953404_1981647998_n.jpg

Anatole A. Klyosov: Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58 (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm)

Petros Houhoulis

12-12-2013, 03:41 PM

Proto-Shaman

12-12-2013, 04:23 PM

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/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory

HOW CAN TURKIC ORIGINAL Y-DNA BE C, WHEN ITS THE HAPLOGROUP OF TUNGUSIC-NA-DÉNE PEOPLES! :picard2:

Petros Houhoulis

12-13-2013, 10:59 AM

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/Paleolithic_Continuity_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachbund) or language area is the ensemble of areal features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areal_feature)—similarity in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phonology—among the languages of the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) (such as Slavic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages), Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_languages), Romance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages), Albanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language) and Indo-Aryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages)) or even outside of Indo-European (such as Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language)). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify)]
While they share little vocabulary, their grammars have very extensive similarities; for example they have similar case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_case) systems and verb conjugation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_conjugation) systems and have all become more analytic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language), 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

12-13-2013, 12:16 PM

As I have mentioned before, it is also worth reading following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_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 :picard1: Even the so called hypothetical "Proto-Indo-Europeans" emerged by approximately 4000-5000 BC :picard1: Haplogroup R1 originated by approximately 10500-23700 BC :picard1:

Indo-Europeans in Native North American pre-history....... Jesus Christ... http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=41428&d=1386681780 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

12-13-2013, 12:22 PM

indo-europeanists are a bunch of faggot white supremacists.

Proto-Shaman

12-13-2013, 12:23 PM

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

12-13-2013, 12:24 PM

Mr. Klyosov further writes:

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

Proto-Shaman

12-13-2013, 12:31 PM

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

12-13-2013, 12:31 PM

Mortimer

12-13-2013, 12:32 PM

Since about 30 years their numbers are growing exponentially.

nice, thats because of rise of non-white people. 100 years ago white people were the only ones to write anthropology and linguistics now we have a few non-whites too but still to less

Proto-Shaman

12-13-2013, 12:35 PM

nice, thats because of rise of non-white people. 100 years ago white people were the only ones to write anthropology and linguistics now we have a few non-whites too but still to less
and because more and more white scholars begin to realize the falsity of colonial eurocentric views.

Mortimer

12-13-2013, 12:36 PM

and because more and more white scholars begin to realize the falsity of colonial eurocentric views.

true and thats nice

Jaska

12-14-2013, 12:21 AM

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

1. No people have or had only one haplogroup.
2. No haplogroup have or had only one people.

Palaeolithic (or any other, for that matter) continuity theory is a severe misunderstanding. Read this and understand:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

Kale

12-14-2013, 03:32 AM

Right! It all makes sense now...Turks are a branch of Indo-Europeans!

Seriously btw, funny thread you got here.

Petros Houhoulis

12-14-2013, 07:20 PM

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

Did you actually READ THAT FUCKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that you are quoting????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory

It is not listed by Mallory among the proposals for the origins of the Indo-European languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses) that are widely discussed and considered credible within academia.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory#cite_note-5)

Perhaps you should read an article about the possible origins of the Indo-European language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#Hypotheses

There are four competing basic models (with variations) that have academic credibility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_credibility) (Mallory (1997 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#CITEREFMallory1997):1 06)):

the Kurgan hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis) (Pontic-Caspian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic-Caspian) area): Chalcolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Age) (5th to 4th millennia BCE)
the Anatolian hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis) (Anatolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia) in Asia Minor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Minor)): Early Neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) (7th to 5th millennia BCE)
the Baltic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_region) hypothesis: Mesolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic) to Neolithic (Ertebølle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erteb%C3%B8lle_culture) to Corded Ware horizon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_horizon), 6th to 3rd millennia BCE)
the Balkan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans) hypothesis, excluding the Anatolian languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages) (a variant of the Anatolian hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis)): Neolithic (5th millennium BCE)

As mentioned above, the Kurgan hypothesis is currently dominant in Indo-European studies. The Anatolian hypothesis is the primary competitor. This hypothesis is primarily associated with Colin Renfrew (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew), although it has also been supported by Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson, based on Bayesian analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_analysis) studies.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-Bouckaert-2)
A number of fringe hypotheses also exist, e.g.:

the Armenian hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis) (proposed in the context of Glottalic theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalic_theory)), with a homeland in Armenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia) in the 4th millennium BCE (excluding the Anatolian branch);
a 6th millennium BCE or later origin in Northern Europe, according to Lothar Kilian's and, especially, Marek Zvelebil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Zvelebil)'s[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-3) models of a broader homeland;
Koenraad Elst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenraad_Elst)'s Out of India theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory) with a homeland in India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent) in the 6th millennium BCE;[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-4)
The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory), with an origin before the 10th millennium BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic)
Nikolai Trubetzkoy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Trubetzkoy)'s theory of Sprachbund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachbund) origin of Indo-European (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European) traits.

Basically, Alineis' theory is supported only by a few deranged lunatics... It is not one of the four main hypotheses of our time.

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

Maybe you should actually READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES THAT YOU QUOTE idiot!

This is by far the most sickest statement I have ever read in this forum :picard1: Even the so called hypothetical "Proto-Indo-Europeans" emerged by approximately 4000-5000 BC :picard1: Haplogroup R1 originated by approximately 10500-23700 BC :picard1:

Funny thing is that both the Kurgan hypothesis and the Paleolithic continuity theory utilize genetics to prove their respective points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#Genetics

Further information: Kurgan hypothesis#Genetics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis#Genetics)The accumulation of Archaeogenetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetic) evidence which uses genetic analysis to trace migration patterns since the 1990s has also added new elements to the puzzle. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza) and Alberto Piazza argue that Renfrew and Gimbutas reinforce rather than contradict each other. Cavalli-Sforza (2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#CITEREFCavalli-Sforza2000)) states that "It is clear that, genetically speaking, peoples of the Kurgan steppe descended at least in part from people of the Middle Eastern Neolithic who immigrated there from Turkey." Piazza & Cavalli-Sforza (2006) state that:

if the expansions began at 9,500 years ago from Anatolia and at 6,000 years ago from the Yamnaya culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture) region, then a 3,500-year period elapsed during their migration to the Volga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_River)-Don (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River_(Russia)) region from Anatolia, probably through the Balkans. There a completely new, mostly pastoral culture developed under the stimulus of an environment unfavorable to standard agriculture, but offering new attractive possibilities. Our hypothesis is, therefore, that Indo-European languages derived from a secondary expansion from the Yamnaya culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture) region after the Neolithic farmers, possibly coming from Anatolia and settled there, developing pastoral nomadism.
Wells (2002 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#CITEREFWells2002)) states that "there is nothing to contradict this model, although the genetic patterns do not provide clear support either," and instead argues that the evidence is much stronger for Gimbutas' model:

while we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe. One possibility is that, as a much earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have dispersed over the years. There is clearly some genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the distribution of Neolithic languages throughout the entirety of Indo-European-speaking Europe.
Haplogroup R1a1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1_(Y-DNA)) is associated with the Kurgan culture. R1a1 shows a strong correlation with Indo-European languages of western Asia and eastern Europe, being most prevalent in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine and also observed in Pakistan, India and central Asia. The connection between Y-DNA R-M17 and the spread of Indo-European languages was first noted by T. Zerjal and colleagues in 1999.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-15)Ornella Semino and colleagues proposed a postglacial spread of the R1a1 gene during the Late Glacial Maximum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Glacial_Maximum), subsequently magnified by the expansion of the Kurgan culture into Europe and eastward.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-16) Spencer Wells suggests that the distribution and age of R1a1 points to an ancient migration corresponding to the spread by the Kurgan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan) people in their expansion from the Eurasian steppe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_steppe).[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-17)
Ancient DNA has confirmed the connection with kurgan burials directly. Out of ten human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, nine possessed the R1a (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)) Y-chromosome haplogroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup) and one C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C_(Y-DNA)) haplogroup (xC3). Mitochrondrial DNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b. 90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes. Significantly R1a also appeared in later kurgan steppe burials through a series of related cultures up to the Scythians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians), known to speak an Indo-European language.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#cite_note-18)

Indo-Europeans in Native North American pre-history....... Jesus Christ... http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=41428&d=1386681780 the Apache chief would give you a big clap...

It is quite simple little boy. Their language got extinct over time by succumbing to other languages, perhaps even before they reached the Americas. Who the fuck gives a shit about what the Apache chief thinks...

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.

This is a bigger problem for you, because you accept the "Nostratic theory" which asserts that IndoEuropean and other language families were descended from a single language... If you cannot agree upon a much coherent construct as the Indo-European family, how could you go as far as proposing something totally disjointed as the "Nostratic" 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.

Indo-European is more or less proven, and it is so either you believe in the Kurgan or the Paleolithic continuity or any other theory. Feel free to contradict yourself by promoting the Paleolithic continuity theory while rejecting the Indo-European language all you like!!!

What a fool!

Petros Houhoulis

12-14-2013, 07:27 PM

Mr. Klyosov further writes:

Oh, what a great guy! He rejects ALL FOUR MAIN HYPOTHESES and of course he "proves" the dozens of scientists who accept them, because he is the clever one...

...And tell me dear, how the "Turkic speaking R1b1" manage to turn all of the Koreans and Japanese into Altaic speakers, without a single drop of R1b1 blood in them???

...Bullshit!

Petros Houhoulis

12-14-2013, 07:32 PM

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

...And what do you think that Klyosov is, a black guy???

http://file.scirp.org/image/201107230509362477.jpg

Take a closer look, you fool!

Petros Houhoulis

12-14-2013, 07:55 PM

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

Why should the Indo-Europeans not exist, but other language families (and their respective carriers) should exist, like the Afro-Asiatic languages or the Austronesian or the Altaic languages? Should we make an exception for the Indo-Europeans just to punish them for being White?

Petros Houhoulis

12-14-2013, 08:03 PM

nice, thats because of rise of non-White people. 100 years ago White people were the only ones to write anthropology and linguistics now we have a few non-whites too but still to less

So what? The language families are not disputed (except from Kipchak Hakan in here!) either we speak about the Indo-European family of languages, or the Austronesian family of languages, or the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Those White people did not propose language families only for White people, they proposed language families for most people on this planet. Yet, somehow this turned them into "White Supremacists"!!!

Why do I even bother to discuss such matters with an idiot whose every post is about "White supremacism", even if the subject (linguistics) does not offer such opportunities... Did you see any "White Supremacist" SCIENTIST (not goons like you) suggesting that the IndoEuropean languages (as a whole) are better than the non-IndoEuropean languages??? If you see any, show him to me too!!!

Petros Houhoulis

12-14-2013, 08:06 PM

and because more and more white scholars begin to realize the falsity of colonial eurocentric views.

Yeah, but then we are talking about Jared Diamond, and not about ANY LINGUIST because, hell, no "colonial Eurocentric" linguist suggested that the Indo-European languages (as a whole) are inherently better than the other language families (as a whole).

This is where your reasoning proves you to be an idiot!!!

Petros Houhoulis

12-14-2013, 08:18 PM

1. No people have or had only one haplogroup.
2. No haplogroup have or had only one people.

Palaeolithic (or any other, for that matter) continuity theory is a severe misunderstanding. Read this and understand:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

Of course no people only had one haplogroup, and no haplogroup had only one people, but...

All of the people who speak IndoEuropean languages have some R1 haplogroup blood in them The Greeks have less than 20% R1 haplogroup, but they still have it.

All of the Altaic speaking people have some C haplogroup blood in them. The Turks and the Japanese have ~3% C haplogroup, but they still have it.

All of the Uralic people have some N haplogroup blood in them. Even the Hungarians have 0.5% N haplogroup... 1 in 200 people, but still, it proves the basic idea that the people who originally spoke a language did not simply impose their language upon the subjugated people. They also spread a few of their genes.

Do you understand the general idea?

LightHouse89

12-14-2013, 08:21 PM

indo-europeanists are a bunch of faggot white supremacists.

LOL gypsy troll.

Mortimer

12-14-2013, 09:55 PM

Why should the Indo-Europeans not exist, but other language families (and their respective carriers) should exist, like the Afro-Asiatic languages or the Austronesian or the Altaic languages? Should we make an exception for the Indo-Europeans just to punish them for being White?

So what? The language families are not disputed (except from Kipchak Hakan in here!) either we speak about the Indo-European family of languages, or the Austronesian family of languages, or the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Those White people did not propose language families only for White people, they proposed language families for most people on this planet. Yet, somehow this turned them into "White Supremacists"!!!

Why do I even bother to discuss such matters with an idiot whose every post is about "White supremacism", even if the subject (linguistics) does not offer such opportunities... Did you see any "White Supremacist" SCIENTIST (not goons like you) suggesting that the IndoEuropean languages (as a whole) are better than the non-IndoEuropean languages??? If you see any, show him to me too!!!

Language Families probably exist, but were often redefined, and associated with race. At one point Finns were believed to be mongoloid and turkic but now thats past. In early encyclopedias racial divisions were based on language families. The Indo-European being White and "Aryan". The Language were not said to be superior but the carriers of the langauge the "aryans" white people technologacilly and racially superior to all others. Nowadays it continues in milder form. White People proposed language family divisions for all but assigned themselfes the best position. Also some described language families are vague and maybe not true, i dont know but i think there should be way more non-white and anti-white scientists against white supremacist scientists

Mortimer

12-14-2013, 09:59 PM

LightHouse89

12-14-2013, 11:24 PM

mrswan you went from being a liberal libertarian to being a right wing gypsy you interest me. What caused such a change?

Mortimer

12-15-2013, 12:46 AM

mrswan you went from being a liberal libertarian to being a right wing gypsy you interest me. What caused such a change?

why do you think that im not liberal anymore. im still liberal, but i wasnt a libertarian im liberal-left(social democrat)

Albion

12-15-2013, 01:23 AM

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1450964_767270869953404_1981647998_n.jpg

Kurgans -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Sutton_Hoo_Burial_Mound_cleaned.jpg
Anglo-Saxon burial mound

http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/01/40/07/51_big.jpg
Ancient burial mound in England

Funeral cart -

http://www.ivargault.com/bilder/begrav.jpg
Celtic chariot burial

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/images/LaTChariotburials.jpg

Mortimer

12-15-2013, 01:28 AM

LightHouse89

12-15-2013, 01:29 AM

why do you think that im not liberal anymore. im still liberal, but i wasnt a libertarian im liberal-left(social democrat)

under politics you once had libertarian put there. This was I think acouple of months ago unless you did not know what a Libertarian is.

LightHouse89

12-15-2013, 01:30 AM

Mortimer

12-15-2013, 01:34 AM

the swastika is a cool symbol but not a religious one.

in lots of cultures it is

Albion

12-15-2013, 01:41 AM

^doesnt prove anything. also similar worship, gods and such, and all that doesnt prove a common origin at all. probably it is inherit to most peoples on earth like the swastika is found from japan to americas

True, but it's likely that they have an IE origin. And what I posted is in response to what I quoted, claiming that such things didn't exist in any IE cultures, so it serves its purpose.

Mortimer

12-15-2013, 02:02 AM

True, but it's likely that they have an IE origin. And what I posted is in response to what I quoted, claiming that such things didn't exist in any IE cultures, so it serves its purpose.

ok didnt read it exactly what you were responding though, but lots of things can be made up, like afrocentrists do or whitecentrists etc. i dont trust that generally. just because there are similarities between cultures doesnt mean one or the other can occupy it. often someone is occupying something similar in a other culture, indians do that too, some indian hindus who say ancient egypt was hindu because they had this or that god or this or that temple which shows similarity to a indian temple or indian god and such. i think humans can create similar things independent of eatch other and burials are usually such things, most humans burry their dead and it could easily be similar grave.

Shah-Jehan

12-15-2013, 02:08 AM

in lots of cultures it is

My avatar is also a swastika, a distinct one from Bengal. It also happens to be a symbol for the wrath of the godess Kali...

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 08:23 PM

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 08:39 PM

Basically, Alineis' theory is supported only by a few deranged lunatics... It is not one of the four main hypotheses of our time.
I know a better explanation. The deranged lunatic proponents of the IE Kurgan theory will awake from their daydreams very soon.

Maybe you should actually READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES THAT YOU QUOTE idiot!Funny thing is that both the Kurgan hypothesis and the Paleolithic continuity theory utilize genetics to prove their respective points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#Genetics

It is quite simple little boy. Their language got extinct over time by succumbing to other languages, perhaps even before they reached the Americas. Who the fuck gives a shit about what the Apache chief thinks...This is a bigger problem for you, because you accept the "Nostratic theory" which asserts that IndoEuropean and other language families were descended from a single language... If you cannot agree upon a much coherent construct as the Indo-European family, how could you go as far as proposing something totally disjointed as the "Nostratic" theory???

Indo-European is more or less proven, and it is so either you believe in the Kurgan or the Paleolithic continuity or any other theory. Feel free to contradict yourself by promoting the Paleolithic continuity theory while rejecting the Indo-European language all you like!!!

What a fool!
You can post your stupipedia text as much as you want, this won't hide your sick complexes with Turks.

"The linguistic research on the Indo-European theory at the end of the 18th c. and early 19th Century arose completely from the necessity of lies and denials. [...]. As a result, the Indo-European languages are found within a common upper group with the Altaic languages. Languages such as French, Turkish and Manchurian are to be classified within the upper-family of the same stock." (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Notice: Nr.386, Sept. 2000)

IE was long ago disproved. Get over it.

...And tell me dear, how the "Turkic speaking R1b1" manage to turn all of the Koreans and Japanese into Altaic speakers, without a single drop of R1b1 blood in them???

...Bullshit!
Very easy little boy, the Altaic language family is just a linguistic theory which lacks in genetic evidence. Thats why "Altaic" is mainly regarded as a brain teasing phenomenon among academic circles. Turkic R1b is the mother of all Celtic R1b btw.

Albion

12-15-2013, 08:46 PM

Turkic R1b is the mother of all Celtic R1b btw.

Brits are Turks now? :D I thought R1b originated in Northern Iran and Eastern Anatolia long before the Turkics even saw the place.

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 08:55 PM

Brits are Turks now? :D I thought R1b originated in Northern Iran and Eastern Anatolia long before the Turkics even saw the place.
Well, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, and some other Siberian, Central Asian and Ural peoples, descend in part from the ancient R1b1 branch, and by now retain the same haplogroup for 16,000 years. There are also proposals for a migration from South Siberia. The current R1b mapping displays the possible R1b migration from South Siberia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

Another proposal is West Asia, the region where Bashkirs still settle in the Urals, or Caucasus and Turkmenistan.

Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Kurgans may be explained by the R1b-Kurganization expansion to Central-East Europe in the period 4300-2500 BC:
http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/75/Kurganisierung.png

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 09:23 PM

Yeah, but then we are talking about Jared Diamond, and not about ANY LINGUIST because, hell, no "colonial Eurocentric" linguist suggested that the Indo-European languages (as a whole) are inherently better than the other language families (as a whole).

This is where your reasoning proves you to be an idiot!!!

So then, why none of the researchers asked themselves a question ”How come the Andronovans of the Mountain Altai are being Türkic-lingual, and the Andronov culture carriers of territories surrounding them are Iranian-lingual”?. Because during the former Soviet Union so much scientific literature was composed by the supporters of the Indo-European theory, the ideological and spiritual direction of which constituted the ideological policy of the colonialists (For the genetical origin of the Middle Asian nomads, see L.T. Yablonsky Ancient Chorasmia. For Caspian-Aral populations and depopulations, see E. Tsvetsinskaya Amudarya Sarykamysh People).

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 09:26 PM

Albion

12-15-2013, 09:34 PM

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 09:39 PM

Where's southern Siberia? Around Lake Baikal?
North-East Kazakhstan via Lake Baikal to West Mongolia.

And why isn't there a detectable Turkic substratum in Germanic or Celtic?
Well, actually there is, but currently its not considered by mainstream at all.

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 10:02 PM

And why isn't there a detectable Turkic substratum in Germanic or Celtic?
I think this is a good article to begin with: http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Germanic/ChuvGer.html

LightHouse89

12-15-2013, 10:26 PM

in lots of cultures it is

Yes especially Hindu culture. It is a more pagan symbol that represented the sun. Why the Nazis choose it is beyond me? The Odal rune in Germanic Runology has more to do with Nationalism or could be used for such a purpose. I think the Swastika was chosen because it looks cool.

Jaska

12-15-2013, 10:29 PM

Of course no people only had one haplogroup, and no haplogroup had only one people, but...

All of the people who speak IndoEuropean languages have some R1 haplogroup blood in them The Greeks have less than 20% R1 haplogroup, but they still have it.

All of the Altaic speaking people have some C haplogroup blood in them. The Turks and the Japanese have ~3% C haplogroup, but they still have it.

All of the Uralic people have some N haplogroup blood in them. Even the Hungarians have 0.5% N haplogroup... 1 in 200 people, but still, it proves the basic idea that the people who originally spoke a language did not simply impose their language upon the subjugated people. They also spread a few of their genes.

Do you understand the general idea?
Yes, it was pointed to that Kipchak man, whose arguments seem to require closed packages without any gene exchange with other populations.

It is true that we must see some genes, which could be responsible for spreading a new language. But so far the time-depth is limited: Uralic is difficult, because some Samoyed peoples don't have any N1c (0,0 %), and Saamis and Hungarians don't have any N1b. These are the best candidates, but of course we must suppose many consecutive waves of advance, between which the main carrier haplogroup may have shifted.

Jaska

12-15-2013, 10:45 PM

Well, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, and some other Siberian, Central Asian and Ural peoples, descend in part from the ancient R1b1 branch, and by now retain the same haplogroup for 16,000 years. There are also proposals for a migration from South Siberia. The current R1b mapping displays the possible R1b migration from South Siberia:

Haplogroup cannot tell anything about the language. That is the very mistake made by Alinei and every other supporter of continuity hypotheses. Genetic continuity is evident everywhere for thousands of years, and still the present linguistic situation is very recent in many places, like in Anatolia.

Turkic languages are so close to each other, that we cannot date Common Turkic beyond 2000 years. Proto-Turko-Bolghar (or whatever name we use) is just a bit older, and the early loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic locate these early Turkic speakers in Central Asia.

Well, actually there is, but currently its not considered by mainstream at all.

And never will, because it just cannot stand critical scientific scrutiny. If you accept the Nostratic hypothesis, it already shows that your criteria are too loose and cannot meet the mainstream linguistic standards.

In the link you gave, there are many words which are not Germanic but Proto-Indo-European in origin! Even if you could find them in Proto-Turkic and not only in Chuvash, they would still be much younger than Proto-IE, which would make them probable loanwords FROM Proto-Indo-European, not vice versa.

Proto-Shaman

12-15-2013, 11:06 PM

Haplogroup cannot tell anything about the language. That is the very mistake made by Alinei and every other supporter of continuity hypotheses. Genetic continuity is evident everywhere for thousands of years, and still the present linguistic situation is very recent in many places, like in Anatolia.

Turkic languages are so close to each other, that we cannot date Common Turkic beyond 2000 years. Proto-Turko-Bolghar (or whatever name we use) is just a bit older, and the early loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic locate these early Turkic speakers in Central Asia.
http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Archaelog.html
http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Bulgar.html

And never will, because it just cannot stand critical scientific scrutiny.
Be honest, you never tried to find it out!

If you accept the Nostratic hypothesis, it already shows that your criteria are too loose and cannot meet the mainstream linguistic standards.
You are claiming the same as your Greeks friend does. The number of people have nothing to do with science.

In the link you gave, there are many words which are not Germanic but Proto-Indo-European in origin! Even if you could find them in Proto-Turkic and not only in Chuvash, they would still be much younger than Proto-IE, which would make them probable loanwords FROM Proto-Indo-European, not vice versa.
Your sweaty theory still lacks in argumentation. Example: Germanic GIRL = Proto-Turkic KIR.

EDIT: Even PT is older than PIE by approximately 500-1500 years.

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 11:56 AM

Brits are Turks now? :D
At least it is worth mentioning the very strong link btw British, Central Asian Turkic and Turkish-Anatolian mtDNA (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?79111-Interesting-DNA-chart-shows-very-strong-link-btw-British-Central-Asian-Turkic-and-Anatolian-mtDNA).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Neigbour-joining-tree-of-population-genetics.png
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=33348&d=1367957209
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=33349&d=1367957797

Average genetic distance matrix among language families:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Genetics_neigbour-joining-tree-of-population.png

Average genetic distance from Turkic group:
http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1229882_701600969853728_304074024_n.jpg

The genetic link between the Celtic and Turkic groups can only be explained by haplogroup R1b, I suppose.

Jaska

12-16-2013, 05:25 PM

http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Archaelog.html
http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Bulgar.html

Your sweaty theory still lacks in argumentation. Example: Germanic GIRL = Proto-Turkic KIR.

EDIT: Even PT is older than PIE by approximately 500-1500 years.
1. What should be there? Just another scholar who uses unreliable continuity argumentation?

2. "Girl" goes back to Proto-Germanic *gurwilon. That does not even remotely look like the Turkic word!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=girl&searchmode=none
You cannot compare modern languages, you must compare the protolanguages.

3. Haha! No linguist believes in so old Proto-Turkic. I bet your evidence again comes unscientifically from archaeology or genetics, right?

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 06:13 PM

1. What should be there? Just another scholar who uses unreliable continuity argumentation?
Why continuity argumentation is unreliable?

2. "Girl" goes back to Proto-Germanic *gurwilon. That does not even remotely look like the Turkic word!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=girl&searchmode=none
You cannot compare modern languages, you must compare the protolanguages.
I'm not stupid. First of all *gurwilon/*gurwijaz is the Germanic diminutive form. Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/girl) says its of uncertain origin. So, this means we can introduce the Proto-Turkic *Kɨ̄ŕ here. Its cognates include Low German Gör, Göre (“child of either sex”), dialectal Norwegian gorre, dialectal Swedish garre, gurre (“small child”), hence German Hure ("bitch xD"). Ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰer- (“short”), compare Old Irish gair (“short”), Ancient Greek χρεώ (chreō, “need, necessity”), χρήσθαι (chrēsthai, “to need”), Sanskrit ह्रस्व (hrasva, “short, small”). This again is consistent with Common Turkic kısa ("short"), Common Turkic kır- ("to break, to shorten"), and Common Turkic kız ("girl"). Turkic kısa (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1sa) ("short") has its own root. Turkic kır- (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1rmak) is rooted in Proto-Turkic *Kɨr ("to break, to shorten"). Turkic kız (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1z) ("girl") is rooted in Proto-Turkic *Kɨ̄ŕ (“girl, short”). Modern Chuvash hir/kir/her/ker (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%B5%D1%80) ("girl, woman") retained the original Proto-Turkic form. Maybe English "her (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/her#Etymology)" is also of Turkic origin. At least the Proto-Germanic form of "her" *hez- perfectly fits with modern Turkic kız (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1z).

There are many more examples!

3. Haha! No linguist believes in so old Proto-Turkic. I bet your evidence again comes unscientifically from archaeology or genetics, right?
ha ha no :rolleyes: Stupipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Turkic_language

Jaska

12-16-2013, 08:00 PM

Why continuity argumentation is unreliable?

I'm not stupid. First of all *gurwilon/*gurwijaz is the Germanic diminutive form. Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/girl) says its of uncertain origin. So, this means we can introduce the Proto-Turkic *Kɨ̄ŕ here. Its cognates include Low German Gör, Göre (“child of either sex”), dialectal Norwegian gorre, dialectal Swedish garre, gurre (“small child”), hence German Hure ("bitch xD"). Ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰer- (“short”), compare Old Irish gair (“short”), Ancient Greek χρεώ (chreō, “need, necessity”), χρήσθαι (chrēsthai, “to need”), Sanskrit ह्रस्व (hrasva, “short, small”). This again is consistent with Common Turkic kısa ("short"), Common Turkic kır- ("to break, to shorten"), and Common Turkic kız ("girl"). Turkic kısa (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1sa) ("short") has its own root. Turkic kır- (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1rmak) is rooted in Proto-Turkic *Kɨr ("to break, to shorten"). Turkic kız (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1z) ("girl") is rooted in Proto-Turkic *Kɨ̄ŕ (“girl, short”). Modern Chuvash hir/kir/her/ker (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%B5%D1%80) ("girl, woman") retained the original Proto-Turkic form. Maybe English "her (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/her#Etymology)" is also of Turkic origin. At least the Proto-Germanic form of "her" *hez- perfectly fits with modern Turkic kız (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k%C4%B1z).

ha ha no :rolleyes: Stupipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Turkic_language
1. Read my messages in the other thread, and the link I already gave many times.

2. There is absolutely no point to claim that Turkic *k would have been substituted with IE *ǵʰ; of course it would have been substituted with IE *k, too. So the word cannot be a loan from Turkic --> IE, but the opposite direction. Proto-Turkic had fewer stops, so its speakers substituted their *k for IE *ǵʰ.

3. The referred sources actually don't support the claim of that Wikipedia writer. The referred sources clearly state that (Late) Proto-Turkic must have dispersed at the latest ~500 BC. The early end is only based on uncertain Proto-Altaic dating, the whole Proto-Altaic being questioned.

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 08:42 PM

1. Read my messages in the other thread, and the link I already gave many times.

2. There is absolutely no point to claim that Turkic *k would have been substituted with IE *ǵʰ; of course it would have been substituted with IE *k, too. So the word cannot be a loan from Turkic --> IE, but the opposite direction. Proto-Turkic had fewer stops, so its speakers substituted their *k for IE *ǵʰ.
I think the sense of Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰer- is too far stretched. Proto-Turkic sounds more independently.

3. The referred sources actually don't support the claim of that Wikipedia writer. The referred sources clearly state that (Late) Proto-Turkic must have dispersed at the latest ~500 BC. The early end is only based on uncertain Proto-Altaic dating, the whole Proto-Altaic being questioned.
500 BC is the lower limit. The lower limit of Proto-Turkic is the time of the appearance of the first direct data from existing Turkic languages. 4000-4500 BC is max. limit. PIE in every sense is younger than Proto-Turkic and Proto-Altaic.

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 09:14 PM

Language Families probably exist, but were often redefined, and associated with race. At one point Finns were believed to be Mongoloid and Turkic but now thats past.

You are a really funny guy, you know. How many people who have seen real Finns would believe that they are Mongoloid? O.K., meybe the Saami would fit the definition, but the Finns in the south??? Get serious Gypsy!!!

In early encyclopedias racial divisions were based on language families. The Indo-European being White and "Aryan". The Language were not said to be superior but the carriers of the langauge the "aryans" white people technologacilly and racially superior to all others.

These views have been purged by science since the end of WWII. Maybe you shall shed your cocoon some day and realize that you live in the 21st century and deal with 21st century science...

Nowadays it continues in milder form. White People proposed language family divisions for all but assigned themselfes the best position.

Actually the IndoEuropeans conquered the world and imposed their language upon the most of the world. This is how the White people got to the "best position", although I doubt that any linguist has ever suggested that the IndoEuropean languages (as a whole) are fundamentally better than the other language families (as a whole).

Also some described language families are vague and maybe not true, i dont know but i think there should be way more non-White and anti-White scientists against White supremacist scientists

No, language families are not going to be redifined anytime soon. In fact, the "redefinition" which you have mentioned above (the split of the Uralic from the Altaic languages) seems to be shattering non-IndoEuropean language families instead...

...And of course, the dominance of the Indo-European languages over the other linguistic families is not going to change anytime soon. The existing conflicts are between English and Latin American languages in the U.S. of A., and English and German in technical documentation, are all between Indo-European languages. The population of the Americas and Australia and other European colonies speaks IndoEuropean, and this is probably an irreversible process. No number of linguists can change that... Sorry but, no matter how much brutal was colonialism, it is there to stay.

In the other hand, places like New Guinea (Jared Diamonds' favorite playground) has one of the most diverse populations in the world, and remains the most diverse linguistic region in the world:

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

The languages of Papua New Guinea (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea) today number over 850,[1] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/#cite_note-1) making it the most linguistically diverse place on earth. Its official languages (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/Official_language) are Tok Pisin (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/Tok_Pisin), English (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/English_language) and Hiri Motu (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/Hiri_Motu). Tok Pisin, an English-based creole (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/Creole_language), is the most widely spoken, serving as the country's lingua franca (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/Lingua_franca).

It is the linguists' paradise, and none of the indigenous language is Indo-European. Unfortunately, as you can see, English is an official language, because of the "cargo". You should recognize the meaning of the word by now, if you bothered to see the videos of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Papua_New_Guinea#English

Although it is an official language of Papua New Guinea, English is only spoken by 1–2% of the population.[2] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/#cite_note-cia-2)

The Indo-European people are still more technologically advanced, and their only competitors are the Chinese and Japanese, who are considered by many the truly racially superior people, based upon their IQ scores... If all of the products are imported and operate in languages like Chinese or English, sooner or later the most of these 850 languages shall be lost. Yet, many linguists are striving to make a record of them before they are gone, and most of them belong to those horrible "IndoEuropean Aryans", you know!!!

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 09:31 PM

ok didnt read it exactly what you were responding though, but lots of things can be made up, like afrocentrists do or whitecentrists etc. i dont trust that generally. just because there are similarities between cultures doesnt mean one or the other can occupy it. often someone is occupying something similar in a other culture, indians do that too, some indian hindus who say ancient egypt was hindu because they had this or that god or this or that temple which shows similarity to a indian temple or indian god and such. i think humans can create similar things independent of eatch other and burials are usually such things, most humans burry their dead and it could easily be similar grave.

Kiddo, it is rather easy for one culture to adopt a single symbol like the swastica. On the other hand, the adoption of an entire language is much more difficult, and the older language always survives as a substratum. Even burial styles are more difficult to adopt than individual symbols, because they are related to tribal beliefs about the afterlife and other religious concepts.

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 09:43 PM

SNP typing for the haplogroup C in Turkic tribes is not considerable. C is a very new event in mongolized Kazakhs.

The Altaic languages are a very new event in the Turkified tribes too:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Turkic

The present-day inhabitants of Central Asia, from Xinjiang to Turkey and from the Volga to the Hindu Kush, speak in overwhelming majority Turkic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages). This may be surprising as this corresponds to the region where the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European speakers expanded, the Bronze-Age Andronovo culture, and the Iron-Age Scythian territory. So why is it that Indo-European languages only survives in Slavic Russia or in the southern part of Central Asia, in places like Tajikistan, Afghanistan or some parts of Turkmenistan ? Why don't the Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs, or the modern Pontic-Caspian steppe people (Crimean Tatars, Nogais, Bashkirs and Chuvashs) speak Indo-European vernaculars ? Genetically these people do carry Indo-European R1a, and to a lesser extent also R1b, lineages. The explanation is that Turkic languages replaced the Iranian tongues of Central Asia between the 4th and 11th century CE. Proto-Turkic originated in Mongolia and southern Siberia with such nomadic tribes as the Xiongnu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiong_Nu). It belongs to the Altaic linguistic family, like Mongolian and Manchu (some also include Korean and Japanese, although they share very little vocabulary in common). It is unknown when Proto-Turkic first emerged, but its spread started with the Hunnic migrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns) westward through the Eurasian steppe and all the way to Europe, only stopped by the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
The Huns were the descendants of the Xiongnu. Ancient DNA tests (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/01/r1a1u2e-male-in-2000-year-old-mongolian.html) have revealed that the Xiongnu were already a hybrid Eurasian people 2,000 years ago, with mixed European and North-East Asian Y-DNA and mtDNA. Modern inhabitants of the Xiongnu homeland have approximately 90% of Mongolian lineages against 10% of European ones. The oldest identified presence of European mtDNA around Mongolia and Lake Baikal dates back to over 6,000 years ago (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/02/y-chromosomes-and-mtdna-in-bronze-age.html).
It appears that Turkic quickly replaced the Scythian and other Iranian dialects all over Central Asia. Other migratory waves brought more Turkic speakers to Eastern and Central Europe, like the Khazars, the Avars, the Bulgars and the Turks (=> see 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25619)). All of them were in fact Central Asian nomads who had adopted Turkic language, but had little if any Mongolian blood. Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones.
Turkic languages have not survived in Europe outside the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Bulgarian language, despite being named after a Turkic tribe, is actually a Slavic tongue with a mild Turkic influence. Hungarian, sometimes mistaken for the heir of Hunnic because of its name, is in reality an Uralic language (Magyar). the The dozens of Turkic languages spoken in the world today have a high degree of mutual intelligibility due to their fairly recent common origin and the nomadic nature of its speakers (until recently). Its two main branches Oghuz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_languages) and Oghur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghur) could be seen as two languages about as distant as Spanish and Italian, and languages within each branch like regional dialects of Spanish and Italian.

Keep masturbating!!!

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 09:48 PM

The Altaic languages are a very new event in the Turkified tribes too:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Turkic

Keep masturbating!!!
Seriously my Greek friend, Eupedia is not a reliable source. Search for a better source, so that I can follow you.

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 10:00 PM

I know a better explanation. The deranged lunatic proponents of the IE Kurgan theory will awake from their daydreams very soon.

Keep masturbating...

You can post your stupipedia text as much as you want, this won't hide your sick complexes with Turks.

"The linguistic research on the Indo-European theory at the end of the 18th c. and early 19th Century arose completely from the necessity of lies and denials. [...]. As a result, the Indo-European languages are found within a common upper group with the Altaic languages. Languages such as French, Turkish and Manchurian are to be classified within the upper-family of the same stock." (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Notice: Nr.386, Sept. 2000)

Ha ha ha ha ha! So, the Altaic languages are something like a branch of the Indo-European languages? Ha ha ha ha ha! In fact, the Altaic languages have an Indo-European substratum, because the Altaic languages in most of West and Central Asia were imposed into an Indo-European people. Read again you fool:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Turkic

Turkic speakers and R1a

The present-day inhabitants of Central Asia, from Xinjiang to Turkey and from the Volga to the Hindu Kush, speak in overwhelming majority Turkic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages). This may be surprising as this corresponds to the region where the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European speakers expanded, the Bronze-Age Andronovo culture, and the Iron-Age Scythian territory. So why is it that Indo-European languages only survives in Slavic Russia or in the southern part of Central Asia, in places like Tajikistan, Afghanistan or some parts of Turkmenistan ? Why don't the Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs, or the modern Pontic-Caspian steppe people (Crimean Tatars, Nogais, Bashkirs and Chuvashs) speak Indo-European vernaculars ? Genetically these people do carry Indo-European R1a, and to a lesser extent also R1b, lineages. The explanation is that Turkic languages replaced the Iranian tongues of Central Asia between the 4th and 11th century CE. Proto-Turkic originated in Mongolia and southern Siberia with such nomadic tribes as the Xiongnu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiong_Nu). It belongs to the Altaic linguistic family, like Mongolian and Manchu (some also include Korean and Japanese, although they share very little vocabulary in common). It is unknown when Proto-Turkic first emerged, but its spread started with the Hunnic migrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns) westward through the Eurasian steppe and all the way to Europe, only stopped by the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
The Huns were the descendants of the Xiongnu. Ancient DNA tests (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/01/r1a1u2e-male-in-2000-year-old-mongolian.html) have revealed that the Xiongnu were already a hybrid Eurasian people 2,000 years ago, with mixed European and North-East Asian Y-DNA and mtDNA. Modern inhabitants of the Xiongnu homeland have approximately 90% of Mongolian lineages against 10% of European ones. The oldest identified presence of European mtDNA around Mongolia and Lake Baikal dates back to over 6,000 years ago (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/02/y-chromosomes-and-mtdna-in-bronze-age.html).
It appears that Turkic quickly replaced the Scythian and other Iranian dialects all over Central Asia. Other migratory waves brought more Turkic speakers to Eastern and Central Europe, like the Khazars, the Avars, the Bulgars and the Turks (=> see 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25619)). All of them were in fact Central Asian nomads who had adopted Turkic language, but had little if any Mongolian blood. Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones.
Turkic languages have not survived in Europe outside the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Bulgarian language, despite being named after a Turkic tribe, is actually a Slavic tongue with a mild Turkic influence. Hungarian, sometimes mistaken for the heir of Hunnic because of its name, is in reality an Uralic language (Magyar). the The dozens of Turkic languages spoken in the world today have a high degree of mutual intelligibility due to their fairly recent common origin and the nomadic nature of its speakers (until recently). Its two main branches Oghuz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_languages) and Oghur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghur) could be seen as two languages about as distant as Spanish and Italian, and languages within each branch like regional dialects of Spanish and Italian.

IE was long ago disproved. Get over it.

By whom? You? HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Very easy little boy, the Altaic language family is just a linguistic theory which lacks in genetic evidence. Thats why "Altaic" is mainly regarded as a brain teasing phenomenon among academic circles. Turkic R1b is the mother of all Celtic R1b btw.

There is no relation between Turkic people and R1b, let alone Turks and Celts!!! R1b is negligent in all of Asia, you little fool!!!

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 10:04 PM

Seriously my Greek friend, Eupedia is not a reliable source. Search for a better source, so that I can follow you.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source... Eupedia is not a reliable source... Obviously the only reliable source are a few deranged Turks like you!!!

Keep masturbating...

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 10:21 PM

Wikipedia is not a reliable source... Eupedia is not a reliable source... Obviously the only reliable source are a few deranged Turks like you!!!

Keep masturbating...
You can use Wikipedia as a source, if there is deeper reference. Unbiased references are favored of course. But Eupedia is by far one of the most unreliable eurocentric crap you can find in the net.

Keep masturbating...Ha ha ha ha ha! So, the Altaic languages are something like a branch of the Indo-European languages? Ha ha ha ha ha! In fact, the Altaic languages have an Indo-European substratum, because the Altaic languages in most of West and Central Asia were imposed into an Indo-European people. Read again you fool:
Maybe Indo-Europeans were Turkic once, who knows... :rolleyes:

By whom? You? HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

There is no relation between Turkic people and R1b, let alone Turks and Celts!!! R1b is negligent in all of Asia, you little fool!!!
:picard2:
Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, and some other Siberian, Central Asian and Ural peoples, descend in part from the ancient R1b1 branch, and by now retain the same haplogroup for 16,000 years.

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 10:29 PM

So then, why none of the researchers asked themselves a question ”How come the Andronovans of the Mountain Altai are being Türkic-lingual, and the Andronov culture carriers of territories surrounding them are Iranian-lingual”?.

Because they are not Andronovans. The real Andronovans, several thousand years ago, were IndoEuropeans, who were Turkified because the Xiongnu (Huns) invaded their lands.

Because during the former Soviet Union so much scientific literature was composed by the supporters of the Indo-European theory, the ideological and spiritual direction of which constituted the ideological policy of the colonialists (For the genetical origin of the Middle Asian nomads, see L.T. Yablonsky Ancient Chorasmia. For Caspian-Aral populations and depopulations, see E. Tsvetsinskaya Amudarya Sarykamysh People).

The Soviet Union scientists were indeed not very reliable, and they did play according to their political masters, but even their distortions are not enough to destroy the IndoEuropean linguistic family or to create unnatural connections between the French and the Turkish/Mongolian languages. What you propose does not simply require that the Soviet scientists were wicked, it requires that all European linguists are also wicked... And worsst of all, it requires that "Soviet" and "Capitalist" linguists cooperate with each other for some wicked cause, at the very moment that the Yankees were supporting the Taliban against the Soviets in Afghanistan... The "political alliances" that are required to make your theories plausible, were the exact opposite of the real political alliances of the time... And Russia is not exactly the best friend of the West even today. Look at the tug of war in Ukraine nowadays, between the pro-EU and the pro-Russian elements... What you claim are your convenient myths of the Turkish world.

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 10:35 PM

You forgot the Greeks, they still have 20% haplogroup E. Not to forget East Europeans 5% E, and Persians 20% E :rolleyes:

Yes, those were the Pelasgians who lost their language beause of the Indo-European invasions in Greece, which have been recorded in the Greek history as the Dorian invasion, and other invasions which are proven by the archaeologic record. We can say with absolute certainty that the Greek language as well as the Persian language belong to the Indo-European languages, and not the Afro-Asiatic languages which include the Semitic/Arabic languages...

...Everybody knows this, except from the Turks, I guess...

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 10:38 PM

North-East Kazakhstan via Lake Baikal to West Mongolia.
Well, actually there is, but currently its not considered by mainstream at all.

All there is are some Turkic hallucinations... Keep masturbating...

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 10:46 PM

Because they are not Andronovans. The real Andronovans, several thousand years ago, were IndoEuropeans, who were Turkified because the Xiongnu (Huns) invaded their lands.
After the intricate analysis performed between the 1950's and 1990's by many archaeologists, particularly Salnikov (1967), Zdanovich, Matveyev, Kuzmina (1977), Potemkina (1985), etc, "Andronovo" cannot be regarded as a single unity, but rather as a conglomeration of several West Siberian cultures of the 2nd millennium BCE with quite indefinite temporal and geographical limits. Studying an alternative possibility of a more eastern location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat outside of the typical Andronovo horizon, we come across the Krotovo, the Samus, the Irmen and the Karasuk cultures. The Krotovo culture is basically similar to the core features of Andronovo with some differences characteristic of a more forested ecozone and fewer technological innovations. The identification of Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic with the Samus culture is much less likely due to its location in the southern taiga ecozone. The common view in the archaeology of West Siberia is that Krotovo-Samus were not connected with Andronovo. We may suppose that they were Samoyedic, which may be better substantiated in the case of Samus. The Irmen culture is dated too late for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic, and by the time of its existence, Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic is supposed to have already split up. On the other hand, it would be much more tempting to associate it with the eastern movement of the early Turkic Proper tribes migrating towards the Altai Mountains and Yenisei.

The reconstructed Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic environment seems to be well within the limits set by the archaeological reconstruction of Andronovo. The main core of Andronovo corresponds to the Alakul culture in northern Kazakhstan, the location of the Alakul culture overlaps the calculated Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area situated in the Tobol-Ishim-Irtysh demoregion by more than a half. The period of the Alakul culture (c. 1700-1200 BCE) matches the prediction for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat circa 1800-1000 BCE. The spatial and temporal location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area matches the Alakul and, to some extent, the Fedorovo cultures within the Andronovo archaeological horizon.

Furthermore the presence of Turkic words (like "kün beg", "uluγ", "tarqan") in the language of the ancient Wusuns makes questionable the standard in the Soviet historical literature point of view about the so-called "Turkification" of the local population in Kazakhstan and Central Asia by the Xiongnu, beginning in the 1st century BC.

What you claim are your convenient myths of the Turkish world.
Myths? Not at all: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievGenesis19-42En.htm

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 10:50 PM

All there is are some Turkic hallucinations... Keep masturbating...
mr. Klyosov is neither Turkic nor has he hallucination.

Yes, those were the Pelasgians who lost their language beause of the Indo-European invasions in Greece, which have been recorded in the Greek history as the Dorian invasion, and other invasions which are proven by the archaeologic record.
Weren't the Pelasgians ancient Greeks, too? :rolleyes:

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 10:53 PM

I think this is a good article to begin with: http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Germanic/ChuvGer.html

Unfortunately, 52 words (if they are all correct) are not enough to prove a solid relationship between Chuvash and German. More likely, they are a proof that the Chuvash assimilated an IndoEuropean people who kept a portion of their vocabulary.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Yankees were worried about the Soviet nuclear scientists and material, and they even went as far as paying for the destruction of the excess nuclear bombs of the Soviets, hiring those unemployed scientists e.t.c.

It seems that the linguists were never that important, and thus the Turks have managed to pay a few of them to create their propaganda. Nevertheless, no matter how many "Turkish Airlines" tricks you make, you'll never manage to hire the "Kobe" and the "Messi" of the western academia. You are simply going to keep deluding yourselves as usual...

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 10:55 PM

Unfortunately, 52 words (if they are all correct) are not enough to prove a solid relationship between Chuvash and German. More likely, they are a proof that the Chuvash assimilated an IndoEuropean people who kept a portion of their vocabulary.
Do me a favour and count the words in these articles, please :rolleyes:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/TurkicBorrowingsEn.htm

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 11:00 PM

Yes, it was pointed to that Kipchak man, whose arguments seem to require closed packages without any gene exchange with other populations.

It is true that we must see some genes, which could be responsible for spreading a new language. But so far the time-depth is limited: Uralic is difficult, because some Samoyed peoples don't have any N1c (0,0 %), and Saamis and Hungarians don't have any N1b. These are the best candidates, but of course we must suppose many consecutive waves of advance, between which the main carrier haplogroup may have shifted.

I didn't make any distinction between N1b and N1c. I assumed that all N people spoke some form of Uralic. Perhaps this is what the haplogroup shifts that you speak of mean.

Don't forget that Uralic is older in most of Europe and Asia than IndoEuropean, which was spread later. I do believe that the Indo-Europeans killed off alot of the I1/I2/N genes in Europe, and quite a bit of other genes like J2/E1b1b as well. This might have resulted to a splinter of the Uralic genes and languages alike over time.

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 11:12 PM

You can use Wikipedia as a source, if there is deeper reference. Unbiased references are favored of course. But Eupedia is by far one of the most unreliable eurocentric crap you can find in the net.

Maybe Indo-Europeans were Turkic once, who knows... :rolleyes:

I know that nobody can travel that much back in time to reconstruct the "Nostratic family" of languages.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

No link = no evidence. You didn't even mention the author of the article there...

:picard2:
Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, and some other Siberian, Central Asian and Ural peoples, descend in part from the ancient R1b1 branch, and by now retain the same haplogroup for 16,000 years.

Yes, because they have been assimilated by Turkic people.

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 11:32 PM

No link = no evidence. You didn't even mention the author of the article there...
http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri.jpg
http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri2.jpg
http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri3.jpg

cited passage is underlined.

Yes, because they have been assimilated by Turkic people.
A linguistic mass-conversion of the noble IE speakers, without a grain of detected noble IE substrate in the body of the 42 mongrel Türkic languages, is a pathetic pipe dream.

Petros Houhoulis

12-16-2013, 11:38 PM

After the intricate analysis performed between the 1950's and 1990's by many archaeologists, particularly Salnikov (1967), Zdanovich, Matveyev, Kuzmina (1977), Potemkina (1985), etc, "Andronovo" cannot be regarded as a single unity, but rather as a conglomeration of several West Siberian cultures of the 2nd millennium BCE with quite indefinite temporal and geographical limits. Studying an alternative possibility of a more eastern location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat outside of the typical Andronovo horizon, we come across the Krotovo, the Samus, the Irmen and the Karasuk cultures. The Krotovo culture is basically similar to the core features of Andronovo with some differences characteristic of a more forested ecozone and fewer technological innovations. The identification of Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic with the Samus culture is much less likely due to its location in the southern taiga ecozone. The common view in the archaeology of West Siberia is that Krotovo-Samus were not connected with Andronovo. We may suppose that they were Samoyedic, which may be better substantiated in the case of Samus. The Irmen culture is dated too late for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic, and by the time of its existence, Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic is supposed to have already split up. On the other hand, it would be much more tempting to associate it with the eastern movement of the early Turkic Proper tribes migrating towards the Altai Mountains and Yenisei.

The reconstructed Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic environment seems to be well within the limits set by the archaeological reconstruction of Andronovo. The main core of Andronovo corresponds to the Alakul culture in northern Kazakhstan, the location of the Alakul culture overlaps the calculated Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area situated in the Tobol-Ishim-Irtysh demoregion by more than a half. The period of the Alakul culture (c. 1700-1200 BCE) matches the prediction for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat circa 1800-1000 BCE. The spatial and temporal location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area matches the Alakul and, to some extent, the Fedorovo cultures within the Andronovo archaeological horizon.

Furthermore the presence of Turkic words (like "kün beg", "uluγ", "tarqan") in the language of the ancient Wusuns makes questionable the standard in the Soviet historical literature point of view about the so-called "Turkification" of the local population in Kazakhstan and Central Asia by the Xiongnu, beginning in the 1st century BC.

Myths? Not at all: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievGenesis19-42En.htm

Actually, it seems that the Soviets created myths which tried to destroy the prevalent Western science, in order to promote a "Communist" narrative of history. How do we know this? Read your very own link fool:

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievGenesis19-42En.htm

"In 2nd half of the 19th century A.I.Gercen could already note the emerging crisis of the bourgeois Eurocentrism... The crush of the Eurocentric thought, appearing in our century to the full extent, meant a transition to a picture of the world with the basis in the principle of unity of the world history and of the cultural development of mankind" [Artanovsky S.N., 1967, 7.

Bourgeois... Eurocentrism??? How do you mythbust Commie propaganda? Well, you find the hated "bourgeois" word in it! The Commies tried to destroy the Indo-European theory because they considered it Eurocentric. Unfortunately, their endless lies resulted to their demise...

A negative view of the Eurocentric ideology also gradually penetrated and into a more broad circle of scientists. From the views of the Eurocentrism first started to free the Finno-Ugrian scientists, especially the Hungarian and Finnish. Opposing the definitions of their ancestral home in the regions of Altai, Sayan mountains or in the Central Asia, they proved that the ancestral home of the Finno-Ugrians was in Europe, and namely, in the wooded zone of the Ural-Itil region. Consequently, with their ancestral home they "intruded the Europe" which, in the opinion of the supporters of the Eurocentrism, should have belonged only to the ancient Indo-European peoples.

Little problem with this "theory": The Uralics didn't split from any Indo-European yoke. They split from the Altaic yoke!!! There was no "Indo-European conspiracy" to team Uralic and Altaic languages together... They are simply closer to each other than to Indo-European. Not close enough to form a single language family though... That was an honest mistake!

Soon the historians of the Türkic peoples had shown the fallacy of another myth, which was advocated by the most politicized partisans of the Eurocentrism, that the Türks were only nomads, and hence, could not properly support themselves, and therefore perpetually attacked the sedentary neighbors, plundered them, did not allow a quiet life. On these grounds came about the next myth about a "progressive" role of some Indo-European peoples in transferring Türkic peoples from nomadic to a settled way of life.

Actually, the nomadic lifestyle of the Mongols and the Turks is more or less true, and we all know that these people lived by the saddle and were the best mounted archers ever - this is how they created empires in Asia. There is no single historical source not to relate the Mongols and the Turks with horses. That does not mean that all of the Indo-European people have been sedentary. The Ancient Greeks mocked the Persians as Barbarians because they were nomadic. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the Indo-Europeans manage to spread all over Europe and much of Asia because they were the first to domesticate the horse. Those horsemen and charioteers were no less nomadic than the Altaians, but they were still DIFFERENT. The Indo-Europeans were not famous as mounted archers. They were famous as simple horsemen and charioteers...

Proto-Shaman

12-16-2013, 11:55 PM

Actually, it seems that the Soviets created myths which tried to destroy the prevalent Western science, in order to promote a "Communist" narrative of history. How do we know this? Read your very own link fool:

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievGenesis19-42En.htm
Without even understanding why u called me a fool, I'll continue my implementation. It has, of course, become commonplace in modern Russia's historiography to associate Andronovians with some sort of "Aryans", usually meaning an extinct branch of Indo-Iranians, see for instance [Otkuda prishli indoarii? Materialnaja kultura andronovskoj obschnosti i proiskhozhdenije indoirantsev.(Where do Indo-Aryans come from? The material culture of the Andronovo horizon and the origins of the Indo-Iranians.), Kuzmina, E.E.; Moscow (1994)], [Yuznyje sosedi finno-ugrov: irantsy ili ischeznuvshaya vetv' arijev ("arii-andronovtsy") (Who were the southern neighbors of Finno-Ugrians: Iranians or an extinct branch or Aryans ("Aryan Andronovians")?), Helimskiy, E.A. // Polytropon, Moscow (1998)].

The word "Aryan" is full of romantic mysticism. But is this opinion well-grounded? The idea of the identification of Andronovo with Indo-Iranians ... was in fact expounded in much detail by Kuzmina in 1994 and in some of her later works.

If the Andronovians were part of the Iranian culture that practiced progressive forms of agriculture and husbandry, used bronze weapons, and then developed into several technologically and demographically strong cultures, such as Sarmatians or Siberian Scythians that supposedly occupied the whole West Siberia, why did they suddenly become completely extinct? What happened to them? Why don't we find absolutely no linguistic traces of these cultures at the present time (except, of course, for the purported borrowings into Finno-Ugric)? Where are those Siberian Scythians gone? Why couldn't they be preserved, say, in small refugium areas until the historical period when their language could be attested directly? Apparently, there are no easy answers to these questions.

The Indo-Europeans were not famous as mounted archers. They were famous as simple horsemen and charioteers...
Let's figure out: Botai culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botai_culture)

Mortimer

12-17-2013, 01:16 AM

Kiddo, it is rather easy for one culture to adopt a single symbol like the swastica. On the other hand, the adoption of an entire language is much more difficult, and the older language always survives as a substratum. Even burial styles are more difficult to adopt than individual symbols, because they are related to tribal beliefs about the afterlife and other religious concepts.

the languages are not the same though, sanskrit is not the same as latin or old gothic, they are worlds apart, they are said to be in the same category by the ones who studied it (usually white europeans) but the similarities could be superficial, i mean it is mainstream accepted and widely accepted almost no one doubts it but other language families which were proposed were doubted like finno-ugric is part of ural-altaic/turanid but now they say it is not.

Petros Houhoulis

12-17-2013, 01:24 AM

mr. Klyosov is neither Turkic nor has he hallucination.

I have fucked plenty of hookers in former Soviet countries, but I've never asked for their opinions in delicate matters. As far as I am concerned, the Russkis' scientific worth in a range of scientific issues is close to zero, either in the Soviet era or in the post-Soviet era.

Weren't the Pelasgians ancient Greeks, too? :rolleyes:

Not really. They were living in Greece, but Herodotus could not understand their speech. There is a non-Greek inscription in a traditional Pelasgian territory, the stele of Lemnos...

Petros Houhoulis

12-17-2013, 01:37 AM

Do me a favour and count the words in these articles, please :rolleyes:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/TurkicBorrowingsEn.htm

My apologies, but I won't do so, especially since your previous list did not include Germanic words, but PIE words, as our Finn fella suggested... You have already shot yourself in the foot once, and I do not trust the entire website now (because all you did was to present the contents of the entire website, where I can clearly see the previous article:

Stetsyuk V. Germanic-Chuvash Türkic Parallels (http://www.theapricity.com/41TurkicInEnglish/EnglishTurkicLexiconEn.htm)

Unfortunately, all of the website is unreliable for another reason that our Finn friend pointed out: The comparison should have been made between PIE (or at least Proto-Germanic, which resulted to both modern German and modern English) and a Proto-Turkic, not German and Chuvash as Stetsyuk suggests or German and Turkish as Stevens suggests or between English and Turkish as Yusipova, Bikkinin and Toth suggest or English and Kipchak as Adji suggests.

If you are unable to comprehend that there is a Proto-Germanic language (not to mention Indo-European) and yet you accept "Nostratic", then all I can say is that you have a few loose screws. Furthermore, the original seems to be in Russian, and I do not have a very high opinion of Russian science, as I have told you...

Petros Houhoulis

12-17-2013, 03:19 AM

http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri.jpg
http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri2.jpg
http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri3.jpg

cited passage is underlined.

A linguistic mass-conversion of the noble IE speakers, without a grain of detected noble IE substrate in the body of the 42 mongrel Türkic languages, is a pathetic pipe dream.

Too bad that linguistic borrowing is no longer enough to explain anything. You previous claims about similarities between "German" and Chuv as well as other modern Turkish languages and English or German has proved your weakness: You cannot actually prove a relation between proto-Germanic and proto-Turkish, or even Celtic or Latin and Proto-Turkish. Linguistic borrowing between modern languages cannot explain an ancient relationship. The word robot is used all over the world, but the origin is Czech. The word Algebra is used all over the world, but the origin is Arabic. There are hundreds of Greek words all over the world, but they are not proof that Greek is the mother of all languages.

The proof should be in the Grammar. Yes! It is quite simple, I should have thought it before: All Indo-European languages are Fusional languages, except from English and Afrikaans which have evolved rather recently into Analytical. On the contrary, all Uralic and Altaic languages are Agglutinative, with Estonian being half way from Agglutinative to Fusional (but not there yet) which proves quite a few things:

Uralic and Altaic were being confused because they were both Agglutinative. Yet nobody confused any Indo-European language with any Uralic or any Altaic language, because there is no Indo-European language which is Agglutinative (and proto-Indo-European is reconstructed as Fusional too) and no Altaic, no Uralic language is Fusional.

Of course the Hunnic invasions and the previous destruction of much of the Indo-European heartland have resulted to some blending, with some relation between German and Chuvash or English and Kipchak, as your authors suggest, but this is not enough evidence to suggest an ANCIENT relation between any Altaic or Uralic language and any Indo-European language. It is still enough to prove that a substratum of Indo-European survives in many Altaic languages (which results to the findings of common words between German and Chuvash, or English and Kipchak) but not further beyond this...

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

A fusional language (also called inflecting language) is a type of synthetic language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language), distinguished from agglutinative languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language) by its tendency to overlay many morphemes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme) to denote grammatical, syntactic or semantic change.Examples of fusional Indo-European languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) are: Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit) (and the modern Indo-Aryan languages),Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) (classical and modern), Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin), Latvian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_language), Lithuanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language), Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language), German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language), Icelandic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_language), Polish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_language), Croatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_language),Serbian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language), Slovak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_language), Ukrainian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_language), and Czech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_language). Another notable group of fusional languages is the Semitic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages) group. A high degree of fusion is also found in many Sami languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_languages), such as Skolt Sami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolt_Sami).
An illustration of fusionality is the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) word bonus ("good"). The ending -us denotes masculine gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender),nominative case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_case), and singular number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number). Changing any one of these features requires replacing the suffix-us with a different one. In the form bonum, the ending -um denotes either masculine accusative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case)singular, neuter accusative singular, or neuter nominative singular.

Fusional languages generally tend to lose their inflection over the centuries—some languages much more quickly than others.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusional_language#cite_note-unfolding-1) For example, while most Uralic languages are predominantly agglutinative, Estonian is markedly evolving in the direction of a fusional language. On the other hand, Finnish, its close relative, exhibits fewer fusional traits, thereby keeping closer to the mainstream Uralic type. Also, supposedly, Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit), Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin), Slovenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian_language), Lithuanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language), and Armenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language) are about as fusional as the unattested Proto-Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language), but modern English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English) and Afrikaans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaans) are almost entirely analytic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language). The Slavic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_language) and Baltic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_language) languages have generally retained their inflection, along with Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language).

Petros Houhoulis

12-17-2013, 03:46 AM

Without even understanding why u called me a fool, I'll continue my implementation. It has, of course, become commonplace in modern Russia's historiography to associate Andronovians with some sort of "Aryans", usually meaning an extinct branch of Indo-Iranians, see for instance [Otkuda prishli indoarii? Materialnaja kultura andronovskoj obschnosti i proiskhozhdenije indoirantsev.(Where do Indo-Aryans come from? The material culture of the Andronovo horizon and the origins of the Indo-Iranians.), Kuzmina, E.E.; Moscow (1994)], [Yuznyje sosedi finno-ugrov: irantsy ili ischeznuvshaya vetv' arijev ("arii-andronovtsy") (Who were the southern neighbors of Finno-Ugrians: Iranians or an extinct branch or Aryans ("Aryan Andronovians")?), Helimskiy, E.A. // Polytropon, Moscow (1998)].

The word "Aryan" is full of romantic mysticism. But is this opinion well-grounded? The idea of the identification of Andronovo with Indo-Iranians ... was in fact expounded in much detail by Kuzmina in 1994 and in some of her later works.

Soviet science was untrustworthy, and Russian science remains untrustworthy. Nobody really knows what language did the Andronovo folks spoke, because THEY LEFT NO WRITTEN RECORD BEHIND THEM. My way of proving that the Altaic language is based around the C chromosome was not based upon archaeology whatsoever (because it's usage in LINGUISTICS is totally UNRELIABLE) but GENETICS, by asking you how the Koreans and the Japanese learned to speak Altaic languages from R1a or R1b speakers if there is no trace of R1a or R1b from them. Why are all of the Altaic languages so close to each other if they are so old as you suggest? You don't seem to answer these simple questions!!!

If the Andronovians were part of the Iranian culture that practiced progressive forms of agriculture and husbandry, used bronze weapons, and then developed into several technologically and demographically strong cultures, such as Sarmatians or Siberian Scythians that supposedly occupied the whole West Siberia, why did they suddenly become completely extinct? What happened to them? Why don't we find absolutely no linguistic traces of these cultures at the present time (except, of course, for the purported borrowings into Finno-Ugric)? Where are those Siberian Scythians gone? Why couldn't they be preserved, say, in small refugium areas until the historical period when their language could be attested directly? Apparently, there are no easy answers to these questions.

There are easy answers to these questions: The language of the Etruscans, the Pelasgians, the Hurrians, the Hattians, the Urartians and the Sumerians got extinct and has left no trace whatsoever. Even if you manage to prove that something from those languages survived in modern Altaic languages, the fact remains that those languages were totally extinct in their own homeland and there is no written record of them after they were extinct, until the discovery of Altaic speaking people in a different region. Still, you have no proof that these languages are more related to Altaic rather than to Uralic or any other agglutinative language like Basque. It is a fact: Spoken languages can disappear, and yes, in places like Asia their carriers can be massacred by the millions, even before the advent of modern weapons. There is no doubt that Uralic used to be a common language over much of North Europe and Asia before the Indo-European invasions... Perhaps there was a common agglutinative family of languages which incorporated everything from Basque to the Uralic to the Altaic and also the extinct Agglutinative languages, but there can be no relation with the Indo-European languages and any of the above.

Let's figure out: Botai culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botai_culture)

Unfortunately, Archaeology cannot shed light in linguistics, if the people in question left no written record, an alphabet, something that can be used to classify their language. As a result, neither Andronovo nor Botai can be of any use in linguistics...

Petros Houhoulis

12-17-2013, 03:57 AM

the languages are not the same though, sanskrit is not the same as latin or old gothic, they are worlds apart, they are said to be in the same category by the ones who studied it (usually white europeans) but the similarities could be superficial, i mean it is mainstream accepted and widely accepted almost no one doubts it but other language families which were proposed were doubted like finno-ugric is part of ural-altaic/turanid but now they say it is not.

They have more than enough similarities. All Indo-European languages are Fusional languages. Dravidian along with Uralic, Altaic, Basque and a number of extinct languages are all Agglutinative. What is important, apart from the similarities in the words, they are similar in Grammar as well.

Uralic and Altaic are both Agglutinative, and this is why they were confused as a single language. Indo-European has been studied for much longer than Uralic and Altaic, and by much more scientists, but the Indo-European theory has never been demolished by any researcher. Not that all Indo-European languages are tight knit. There is a major distinction between Centum languages of Western and Central Europe and Tocharian, and Satem languages of Eastern Europe (Slavic and Baltic) and many Asian ones from Iran to North India. There are many other fractures between the Indo-European languages, but no real dispute that all of them have a common origin, no matter what Kipchak Hakan says.

http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/agglutinative_languages.jpg

Mortimer

12-17-2013, 04:11 AM

They have more than enough similarities. All Indo-European languages are Fusional languages. Dravidian along with Uralic, Altaic, Basque and a number of extinct languages are all Agglutinative. What is important, apart from the similarities in the words, they are similar in Grammar as well.

Uralic and Altaic are both Agglutinative, and this is why they were confused as a single language. Indo-European has been studied for much longer than Uralic and Altaic, and by much more scientists, but the Indo-European theory has never been demolished by any researcher. Not that all Indo-European languages are tight knit. There is a major distinction between Centum languages of Western and Central Europe and Tocharian, and Satem languages of Eastern Europe (Slavic and Baltic) and many Asian ones from Iran to North India. There are many other fractures between the Indo-European languages, but no real dispute that all of them have a common origin, no matter what Kipchak Hakan says.

Im not linguist i dont know what fusional languages mean and all that. No one is doubting it so far true.

Petros Houhoulis

12-17-2013, 04:51 AM

Im not linguist i dont know what fusional languages mean and all that. No one is doubting it so far true.

I just got hold of ANOTHER theory, according to which, the Altaic family of languages might not even exist!!!

http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/altaic-and-related-languages

Today’s language-family maps take up the controversial issue of Altaic (http://geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/the-altaic-family-controversy). Several decades ago, many linguists grouped the Altaic languages with the Uralic languages, but that thesis is no longer tenable. Now many linguists are expressing doubt about the Altaic family itself. Languages placed within this group have a number of common features, but such features seem to many experts to result from borrowing. The farther back in history one goes, the less similar the main branches of the Altaic family appear. To the extent that this is true, Altaic cannot be regarded as a legitimate language family. I have therefore included a conventional map of Altaic, based closely on the Wikipedia language-family map found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Language_Families_Map_(Wikipedia_Colors _.PNG). But I have also posted maps of the three main branches of Altaic (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic), which may well be first-order language families themselves. Note again that the mapping is approximate at best, and refers to the situation pertaining in the mid-twentieth century rather than that of today. I have again closely followed the Wikipedia original map, although I did add a small Turkic area in northeastern Bulgaria. I wanted to add one as well in northern Cyprus, but the area is too small to be indicated given the tools that I am using.

A few scholars have suggested that Japanese and Korean also fall into the Altaic category, although that view is difficult to support. Others think that both languages have an Altaic superstratum,* but do not belong in the family (it has also been suggested that Japanese has an Austronesian substratum). Although the membership of Japanese and Korean in an Altaic family seems highly unlikely, I have posted a map of “Macro-Altaic” that includes both languages just to be comprehensive.

Some scholars have suggested that Japanese and Korean together form a language family of their own, but support for this thesis is also scant. Japanese is usually regarded as the main language of the much more restricted Japonic family. In addition to Japanese, this family includes the languages of the Ryukyu Archipelago, such as Okinawan. These tongues are often classified as dialects of Japanese, but by purely linguistic criteria they are languages in their own right. I have thus added a small dot to the map of the Japonic languages to indicate Okinawan. Note that the Wikipedia original map ignores the Japonic category and instead classifies Japanese as an isolate, or a language that sits alone rather than forming part of a larger family. (On the classification of Japanese, see here (http://languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/on-the-japanese-homeland.html) and here (http://languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/javanese-influence-on-japanese.html).)

The Wikipedia map also classifies Korean as an isolate. I have instead placed it in the Koreanic family, as several extinct languages also fall into this group, and as the tongue of Jeju island is considered by many linguists to be distinct enough from standard Korean to be classified as a language in its own right. I have thus added a dot for Jeju. It is too large, but unfortunately I cannot shrink it any further.*A “superstratum” refers to linguistic elements imposed on a given language by high-prestige people, often rulers, who spoke a different language, whereas a “substratum” refers to the surviving linguistic elements of a group whose language was supplanted by another tongue.

It is kinda funny... That the language family which is really under dispute is the Altaic and NOT the Indo-European, and if true, it would be the absolute truth that most of there Altaic languages were not spread from a single core like the Indo-European languages, but came closer to each other over time. This would blow up Kipchak Hakans' theories once and for all: The Altaic languages are nothing more than a blend of many features of many different languages from many different language families, with the Turkish ones having an Indo-European substratum, while the Japonic have an Austronesian substratum!!!

Mortimer

12-17-2013, 05:29 AM

I just got hold of ANOTHER theory, according to which, the Altaic family of languages might not even exist!!!

http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/altaic-and-related-languages

It is kinda funny... That the language family which is really under dispute is the Altaic and NOT the Indo-European, and if true, it would be the absolute truth that most of there Altaic languages were not spread from a single core like the Indo-European languages, but came closer to each other over time. This would blow up Kipchak Hakans' theories once and for all: The Altaic languages are nothing more than a blend of many features of many different languages from many different language families, with the Turkish ones having an Indo-European substratum, while the Japonic have an Austronesian substratum!!!

i think that the indo-european language family doesnt exist. it should be reviewed critically since it is source of much injustice (gas chamber, death of 6 million jews, european imperialism etc.)

Jaska

12-17-2013, 07:29 AM

I think the sense of Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰer- is too far stretched. Proto-Turkic sounds more independently.

500 BC is the lower limit. The lower limit of Proto-Turkic is the time of the appearance of the first direct data from existing Turkic languages. 4000-4500 BC is max. limit. PIE in every sense is younger than Proto-Turkic and Proto-Altaic.
1. What? Now you deny the loan relationship, when the direction is "wrong"?

2. There is no point to consider Proto-Turkic lasting several millennia, it is absurd. At least we must say that Late Proto-Turkic - the most recent common ancestor for all Turkic languages - was spoken at the 1st millennium BC, and Early Proto-Turkic or Pre-Proto-Turkic was of course earlier. But we have no evidence to put it around 4000 BC! That is just an arbitrary ad hoc claim.

Besides, Pre-Proto-Indo-European can be said to have been spoken 10 000 BC, if you like. There is no point talking about pre-proto-languages, because we cannot date them!

P.S. Why this forum makes many messages so narrow?

Proto-Shaman

12-17-2013, 10:36 AM

---------------

Proto-Shaman

12-17-2013, 10:55 AM

I have fucked plenty of hookers in former Soviet countries, but I've never asked for their opinions in delicate matters. As far as I am concerned, the Russkis' scientific worth in a range of scientific issues is close to zero, either in the Soviet era or in the post-Soviet era.
Sorry, can't follow your psychotic fecal thought here. And I do not want to continue this point with such kind of rogue argumentation.

Not really. They were living in Greece, but Herodotus could not understand their speech. There is a non-Greek inscription in a traditional Pelasgian territory, the stele of Lemnos...
So, you accept civilizers from outside Greece?

BTW, personally I would not accept ANY archaeologic proof in linguistics, without a decoded alphabet and a decoded language... There is no way in hell anybody could prove who lived in Andronovo or in a million other Andronovos which have been destroyed since several thousand years ago, and we'll never know anything about them.
The theory of Indo-Iranian origins of Andronovians is poorly founded, and the arguments provided for it raise too many doubts. However, it may still hold a couple of appealing points, with some uncertainty still remaining. The main core of Andronovo corresponds to the Alakul culture in northern Kazakhstan, the location of the Alakul culture overlaps the calculated Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area situated in the Tobol-Ishim-Irtysh demoregion by more than a half. Furthermore, the Andronovo anthropological type made a basis for the anthropological type of Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Kirghizes, Altaians, partly Uzbeks, etc.

Nonetheless, here is a good summary for the possible ethnic identities of the Andronovan cultural horizon:

“Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the contemporary but very different Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes of the 2nd millennium b.c. have identified both as Indo-Iranian, and particular sites so identified, are being used for nationalist purposes. There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they had a common [Indo-European] ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not easily linked with an archaeological signature, and the identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. [...]. There are serious problems in determining the chronology of the Common Altaic protolanguage. The question is not whether an Altaic protolanguage existed but how shared linguistic material due to early contacts can be distinguished from that inherited from the supposed Common Altaic. Whatever the answer to this question, it is very unlikely that in the chronological range of Andronovo and the Bactrian Margiana complex a Common Altaic (still) existed. This means that the possible languages of the bearers of these archaeological cultures can only be Turkic or Mongolian (for several reasons I would exclude Manchu-Tunguzian and other supposed Altaic languages such as Korean or Japanese).[...]. Both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolian could, however, reflect a culture like the Andronovo. [.]. It is not surprising that the majority continue to hold the view that the bearers of the Andronovo culture spoke Indo-Iranian. Consensus is not, however, the hallmark of all responses. [...]. Renfrew favors an Indo-Iranian identity for the Andronovo, and he fully realizes that there is not a shred of evidence that identifies the Andronovo with the traditional homeland of the Indo-Iranian-speakers either on the Iranian Plateau or in South Asia. There is, however, clear evidence for a Bactrian Margiana presence on the Iranian Plateau (Amiet 1984, Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992) and in South Asia (Jarrige 1993, n.d.). [...]. Such diversity among the Andronovo appeals to me. Framing the question as what language the Andronovo spoke is, I believe, misdirected. The Andronovo was made up of many cultures subject to constant change; some may have spoken Indo-Iranian, others Proto-Turkic, and yet others Proto-Mongolian, and, pace Mallory, there may have been an occasional Finno-Ugric-speaker among the lot.”

Source: Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians, by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Harvard University, Current Anthropology Volume 43, Number 1, February 2002, © by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2002/4301-0003$3.00). http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/IE/LambergKarlovsky.pdf

These implementations in turn would just confirm following passage from turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net:

“In any case, there is no reason to believe the Indo-Iranian hypothesis is in any way more appealing than the current proposal of the Bulgaro-Turkic identification. [...] the most western and most ancient parts of the early Andronovo, such as Sintashta-Petrovka, could still belong to the Indo-European stock, whereas the more eastern areas, such as Alakul, Fedorovo and possibly other settlements near the Irtysh could most likely be Bulgaro-Turkic in origin.”

Source: The Proto-Turkic Urheimat & The Early Migrations of Turkic Peoples (2012)
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Proto_Turkic_Urheimat.html

Proto-Shaman

12-17-2013, 11:00 AM

1. What? Now you deny the loan relationship, when the direction is "wrong"?
Explpain in deteil please, so that I can follow your thought properly.

2. There is no point to consider Proto-Turkic lasting several millennia, it is absurd. At least we must say that Late Proto-Turkic - the most recent common ancestor for all Turkic languages - was spoken at the 1st millennium BC, and Early Proto-Turkic or Pre-Proto-Turkic was of course earlier. But we have no evidence to put it around 4000 BC! That is just an arbitrary ad hoc claim.

Besides, Pre-Proto-Indo-European can be said to have been spoken 10 000 BC, if you like. There is no point talking about pre-proto-languages, because we cannot date them!

P.S. Why this forum makes many messages so narrow?
Consensus for proto-Turkic is about 3000 BC btw. This is the most realistic assumption. The same goes for PIE.

Proto-Shaman

12-17-2013, 11:59 AM

My apologies, but I won't do so, especially since your previous list did not include Germanic words, but PIE words, as our Finn fella suggested... You have already shot yourself in the foot once, and I do not trust the entire website now (because all you did was to present the contents of the entire website, where I can clearly see the previous article:

Stetsyuk V. Germanic-Chuvash Türkic Parallels (http://www.theapricity.com/41TurkicInEnglish/EnglishTurkicLexiconEn.htm)

Unfortunately, all of the website is unreliable for another reason that our Finn friend pointed out: The comparison should have been made between PIE (or at least Proto-Germanic, which resulted to both modern German and modern English) and a Proto-Turkic, not German and Chuvash as Stetsyuk suggests or German and Turkish as Stevens suggests or between English and Turkish as Yusipova, Bikkinin and Toth suggest or English and Kipchak as Adji suggests.

If you are unable to comprehend that there is a Proto-Germanic language (not to mention Indo-European) and yet you accept "Nostratic", then all I can say is that you have a few loose screws. Furthermore, the original seems to be in Russian, and I do not have a very high opinion of Russian science, as I have told you...
PIE in many cases only implies local Germanic forms, this means absence of PIE forms in other IE languages. The website is totally reliable. Don't forget runic Turkic texts in Scandinavia.

Jaska

12-18-2013, 02:47 PM

Do me a favour and count the words in these articles, please
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...rrowingsEn.htm

That's a pseudo-linguistic joke! Many of those words do not even look similar. And there are many English words descending from Proto-Indo-European, so they are more probably IE loanwords in Turkic.
You shouldn't believe what the amateurs tell you.

I didn't make any distinction between N1b and N1c. I assumed that all N people spoke some form of Uralic. Perhaps this is what the haplogroup shifts that you speak of mean.

You cannot assume that all N-people spoke Uralic. You cannot even assume that all N1c-men or all N1b-men spoke Uralic.

Don't forget that Uralic is older in most of Europe and Asia than IndoEuropean, which was spread later. I do believe that the Indo-Europeans killed off alot of the I1/I2/N genes in Europe, and quite a bit of other genes like J2/E1b1b as well. This might have resulted to a splinter of the Uralic genes and languages alike over time.

Newest and best-argued views tell us that the expansion of Proto-Uralic only began around 2000 BC.
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_parpola.pdf

So, Uralic reached even Finland later than Indo-European.

Consensus for proto-Turkic is about 3000 BC btw. This is the most realistic assumption. The same goes for PIE.

If you read any scientific books outside Turkey, you will see that Late Proto-Turkic is dated to the last millennium BC.

PIE in many cases only implies local Germanic forms, this means absence of PIE forms in other IE languages. The website is totally reliable. Don't forget runic Turkic texts in Scandinavia.

Please! Don't you see how uncritical and unscientific you are?
- There are no Turkic rune texts in Scandinavia, not a single one. There are some rune texts which are "magical" = no true words, and such can be "interpreted" through every language. It is not a scientific hypothesis, if we don't even know the meaning of the text – namely there are similar looking words in every language.
- Your website has no credible linguistic stuff, only amateurs who don't understand the methods of historical linguistics. No historical linguist compares modern languages but protolanguages!

The page you linked dates Proto-Turkic lexicostatistically, but that method is totally unreliable - read this at last:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf

P.S. I have ad-block, so I don't see ads. But if I edit a narrow message, it becomes wide again...

Proto-Shaman

12-18-2013, 03:30 PM

There are two quotations which were not written by me. Correct it please.

That's a pseudo-linguistic joke! Many of those words do not even look similar. And there are many English words descending from Proto-Indo-European, so they are more probably IE loanwords in Turkic.
You shouldn't believe what the amateurs tell you.
Just because you can't get over western academic facts, its not my problem, get over it.

English - Kypchak Turkic
Where? - Kayer? [compare Middle English 'wher', 'quher', literally “at what place”, compare to Turkic 'ka' (at what) and 'yer (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yer#Etymology_2)' (place).]
Where at? - Kayer te?
When - Kanu?
Whom - Kim?
Why - Kayu?
Whence - Kança?
Wait - Küt
Waiter - Küter
Waiting - Kütgen
Will - Kıl
Willing - Kılgan
Wry - Ekri

The letter -w, said to be coming from the Old Germanic -w/ka letter. Somehow this -w/ka has softened to a -w sound. Now we know that letter -w was back in time gave out a -ka sound. Example:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=41839&d=1387383320

Interestingly you can analyse English grammar by the help of Kypchak dialects (:

If you read any scientific books outside Turkey, you will see that Late Proto-Turkic is dated to the last millennium BC.
So you consider western scientific books as Turkish :picard2: 3000 BC is simple academic fact.

Please! Don't you see how uncritical and unscientific you are?
- There are no Turkic rune texts in Scandinavia, not a single one. There are some rune texts which are "magical" = no true words, and such can be "interpreted" through every language. It is not a scientific hypothesis, if we don't even know the meaning of the text – namely there are similar looking words in every language.
Let me help you being up-to-date:

http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/

„Kurum has gone so far as to read the as yet UNDECIPHERED Kylver stone from Stanga, the Istaby stone from Blekinge, and the Mjbro stone from Uppland Sweden using the Gokturk style of reading characters. [...] the modern Futhark set contains twenty-four symbols rather than twenty-two. Turgay Kurum solves this riddle as well. Turgay Kurum has read the oldest extant Futhark twenty-four character rune now from the Kylver stone in Stanga, Gotland. [...]. He points out that characters 22, 23, and 24, if read from right to left (Ogal, Dag, and Ing) give us Oding, or Odin. Turgay suggests that the last who last characters, Ogal and Dag, were added at the beginning of the Iron Age with the return of Odin's people to the West. In other words, the modern Futhark set is Odin's signed and sealed symbol set that he and his people brought back to the West. Odin's Germanic Futhark also carried whit it the rustic sibilance of the steppes peoples of Central Asia reflectet in endings such as Uruz, Thurisaz, Tiwaz, and Ingwaz that many modern renditions of Futhark still give them.”

Source: Carl J. Becker, A Modern Theory Of Language Evolution, 2004, pp.357-360 (http://books.google.de/books?id=VpdXKpmaYLEC)
_____________________________________

- Your website has no credible linguistic stuff, only amateurs who don't understand the methods of historical linguistics. No historical linguist compares modern languages but protolanguages!

The page you linked dates Proto-Turkic lexicostatistically, but that method is totally unreliable - read this at last:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf

P.S. I have ad-block, so I don't see ads. But if I edit a narrow message, it becomes wide again...
You cited the wrong person.

Jaska

12-18-2013, 07:51 PM

Just because you can't get over western academic facts, its not my problem, get over it.

It is your problem, if you want to destroy science and if you want people to get over facts to the realm of imagination and fantasy.

1. English "wait" is a loanword from Old french:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=wait&searchmode=none

2. English "will" comes from PIE *wel-/*wol-:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=will&searchmode=none

3. English "wry" comes from PIE *wreik:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Wry&searchmode=none

Very amateurish not to look at the etymological dictionaries, and not to operate with the reconstructed protolanguages.

Interestingly you can analyse English grammar by the help of Kypchak dialects (:

No, I can't. Such illusory similarities can be found between any languages. You should have:
1. regular sound correspondences
2. similar meanings

So you consider westernscientific books as Turkish 3000 BC is simple academic fact.

I already told you that the sources in Wikipedia tell that Late Proto-Turkic is around 1st millennium BC. That 3000 BC is not an academic fact, it is a hypothesis based on unreliable method: lexicostatistics. Such dating has no value whatsoever.

„Kurum has gone so far as to read the as yet UNDECIPHERED Kylver stone from Stanga, the Istaby stone from Blekinge, and the Mjbro stone from Uppland Sweden using the Gokturk style of reading characters."

Again pure pseudo-science.
If the writing is UNDECIPHERED, it means that we don't know what it says. Then it is very easy to compare words from any language, because all languages have similar-looking words. There is nothing scientific in such a method. The very same text could be "interpreted" through Hindi, Xhosa, Nahuatl or Aleut! You just have to look at the dictionaries and find similar-looking words.

That is not scientific at all.

But you clearly have no capacity to understand these arguments, so keep your beliefs.

LightHouse89

12-18-2013, 08:16 PM

mrswan are you on drugs?

LightHouse89

12-18-2013, 08:18 PM

I see nothing wrong with the term Aryan and its mystical meaning. I think the reason it is used is due to the fact of hat it means...Noble or to be noble. I read this someone once, maybe in Grimms Teutonic mythology books and it interested me in its usage. However the actual Aryans no longer exist and if they do they live somewhere in India and are mixed by now.

Rojava

12-18-2013, 08:18 PM

LightHouse89

12-18-2013, 08:25 PM

Kiddo, it is rather easy for one culture to adopt a single symbol like the swastica. On the other hand, the adoption of an entire language is much more difficult, and the older language always survives as a substratum. Even burial styles are more difficult to adopt than individual symbols, because they are related to tribal beliefs about the afterlife and other religious concepts.

The swastika has no specific origin and can be found in many cultures. I may have come from Asia at one point in time. The celtic cross fascinates me because it predates Christianity and yet Christians think that saint Patrick invented it. It was a symbol used by the druids and that was a long time before Christ. That symbol can be found in other areas of Europe and usually represents the sun. However in Ireland it represented the moon.

Proto-Shaman

12-18-2013, 08:44 PM

However the actual Aryans no longer exist and if they do they live somewhere in India and are mixed by now.
By dna or language?

Proto-Shaman

12-18-2013, 09:08 PM

lol Jaska, what an own goal :rolleyes:

1. English "wait" is a loanword from Old french:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=wait&searchmode=none
compare French guetter ≈ Kypchak küter.

French form is of Germanic origin, from Proto-Germanic diminutive *wahtwō (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wait#Etymology), from the stem *waht ≈ hence Kypchak küt.

2. English "will" comes from PIE *wel-/*wol-:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=will&searchmode=none
≈ compare Common Turkic kıl.

3. English "wry" comes from PIE *wreik:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Wry&searchmode=none
≈ compare Common Turkic ekrik/eğrik

Jaska, the -w/ka (including r/z!) correlation between Germanic and Turkic still exists. Next try noob :rolleyes:

No, I can't. Such illusory similarities can be found between any languages. You should have:
1. regular sound correspondences
2. similar meanings
Nice excuse. Next try.

I already told you that the sources in Wikipedia tell that Late Proto-Turkic is around 1st millennium BC. That 3000 BC is not an academic fact, it is a hypothesis based on unreliable method: lexicostatistics. Such dating has no value whatsoever.
It seems you didn't get it right? 1st millenium bc is the time period (lower limit) of the seperation into modern branches. Read the source of Róna-Tas:

"The lower limit of Proto-Turkic is the time of the appearance of the first direct data from existing Turkic languages, in fact after the separation of the branches of Turkic, i.e. about the middle of the first millenium BC."

Again pure pseudo-science.
If the writing is UNDECIPHERED, it means that we don't know what it says. Then it is very easy to compare words from any language, because all languages have similar-looking words. There is nothing scientific in such a method. The very same text could be "interpreted" through Hindi, Xhosa, Nahuatl or Aleut! You just have to look at the dictionaries and find similar-looking words.

That is not scientific at all.

But you clearly have no capacity to understand these arguments, so keep your beliefs.

READ CAREFULLY: http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/

NOTHING pseudo-science. By the transcription through Turkic runes you will get not only a Turkic text, but also a detailed description of the carvings and paintings on the stones. What a coincidence :thumbs up

example:
http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/IR16.GIFhttp://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/IR9.GIF

Do you see the two dogs? And not to forget the attacking brave warrior :thumbs up

Museum of Turkic written language history (http://www.eurasianism.enu.kz/en/enu-tsentr-evraziyskoy-mysli/muzei-pismennosti/):
"Ancient scripts of Scandinavia, reflecting the Slavic-Scandinavian connection of Viking are runic inscriptions. But, the scientific research proved that those runic scripts were Turkic writings."

Jaska

12-20-2013, 12:47 AM

lol Jaska, what an own goal
compare French guetter≈ Kypchak küter.
French form is of Germanic origin, from Proto-Germanic diminutive *wahtwō, from the stem *waht ≈ hence Kypchak küt.

You cannot compare the French form to the Turkic form, when you know that the French form does not come from Turkic but Germanic! Your comparison only confirms that those similarities are pure coincidence. You made the own goal.

You should tell the meanings of those Turkic words - it is irrelevant to compare words which have different meanings, because if they look similar, it is pure coincidence. How you cannot understand this?

If the meanings are similar and you can show regular sound correspondences, then we may consider those words possible Indo-European loanwords in Turkic. Because Late Proto-Indo-European (4th millennium BC) is much older language than Late Proto-Turkic (1st millennium BC).

It seems you didn't get it right? 1st millenium bc is the time period (lower limit) of the seperation into modern branches. Read the source of Róna-Tas:

Yes? Of course we must only take into consideration the modern (= existing) branches! You cannot just invent a long-lost Turkic branch and claim that it dispersed from Proto-Turkic 10 000 years ago and therefore Proto-Turkic must be 10 000 years old. That would be absurd, because then I could invent a long-lost Indo-European branch 20 000 years old.

NOTHING pseudo-science. By the transcription through Turkic runes you will get not only a Turkic text, but also a detailed description of the carvings and paintings on the stones. What a coincidence

It is pseudo-science, because the text can be interpreted through Scandinavian languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6jbro_Runestone

Besides, your friend's Turkic interpretation is not regular: he switches vowels and consonants when it suits him better, and even reads some runes in wrong order! (That L here: http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/FUTHP4E.HTM)

You can only believe in such nonsense, because you know nothing about the linguistic methods and you haven't read even Wikipedia enough to know the Scandinavian interpretations. :coffee:

Proto-Shaman

12-20-2013, 10:37 AM

You cannot compare the French form to the Turkic form, when you know that the French form does not come from Turkic but Germanic! Your comparison only confirms that those similarities are pure coincidence. You made the own goal.

You should tell the meanings of those Turkic words - it is irrelevant to compare words which have different meanings, because if they look similar, it is pure coincidence. How you cannot understand this?
To bad that Proto-Germanic *waht and Kypchak Turkic küt are still similar due to -w/ka correlation :bored: Even the IE root *weǵ- is consistent with the Oghuz and Common Turkic form bek- (to wait) and bak- (to look for), both from Proto-Turkic. Unbelievable how you can still deny existing Germanic-Turkic common traits. lol Jaska another own goal :bored:

Beside the Germanic suffix -er (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-er#English) is consistent with Common Turkic -er/-ar (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-er#Turkish). Even Germanic (-er/-ar) and Turkic (-lar/-ler/-tar/-ter) plurals are similar :coffee:

If the meanings are similar and you can show regular sound correspondences, then we may consider those words possible Indo-European loanwords in Turkic. Because Late Proto-Indo-European (4th millennium BC) is much older language than Late Proto-Turkic (1st millennium BC).
IE loan substratum in Turkic? keep dreaming :bored:

Yes? Of course we must only take into consideration the modern (= existing) branches! You cannot just invent a long-lost Turkic branch and claim that it dispersed from Proto-Turkic 10 000 years ago and therefore Proto-Turkic must be 10 000 years old. That would be absurd, because then I could invent a long-lost Indo-European branch 20 000 years old.
It seems you never heard of language evolution.

It is pseudo-science, because the text can be interpreted through Scandinavian languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6jbro_Runestone
Actually what you have shown me is pseudo-science :picard2: The stones weren't even deciphered, there were many attempts, but they weren't able to decipher properly. All attempts failed at the end, including your Wikipedia pseudo-science.

Besides, your friend's Turkic interpretation is not regular: he switches vowels and consonants when it suits him better, and even reads some runes in wrong order! (That L here: http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/FUTHP4E.HTM)
You can only believe in such nonsense, because you know nothing about the linguistic methods and you haven't read even Wikipedia enough to know the Scandinavian interpretations. :coffee:
Thats very normal, without switching vowels you can't even read Gokturks inscriptions :bored: