Do you understand now why I don't buy the Scytho-Irano hypothesis as the only truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Do you understand now why I don't buy the Scytho-Irano hypothesis as the only truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
No I don't because it doesn't need the Scythians beeing Turkic just so that the Scythians play a role in the appearance of Turkic tribes. Proto_Indo Europeans and their language is also the result of proto agricultural people merging with H&G. Without these two elements Proto Indo European wouldn't exist. But saying any of these two elements is Indo European is incorrect like saying your father or mother is also the same person as you. Just because you came to existence out of the merge of your mother's and father's dna that doesn't make any of your parents to the same person like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Another example.
Just like it is an proto Mesopotamian/Southwest Iranian element( Elamites) what makes Persians what they are. Without this Elamite element (Even the traditional Persian long robe is adopted from Elamites) Persians wouldn't exist. But does that make Elamites, Persians?
So you would consider this man as mixture of Iranian and Mongol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...9&d=1421604524
___
If modern day Iranians are more Elamite than IE, why Iranians speak an IE language?
Not clear from that one sculpture, genetics is also very important when it comes to West and East Eurasian division. However lookwise he is more Caucasoid looking but with East Eurasian mixture. He looks archaic for an Eurasian anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Quote:
If modern day Iranians are more Elamite than IE, why Iranians speak an IE language?
Who wrote modern Persians are more Elamite than Proto Iranic? You are sometimes taking my statements out of context. I worte any group of Indo European people mixed with the local groups and created their own identity. Scandinavians are Proto_Germanic in connection with pre Indo European Nordic tribes.
Persians evolved out of Proto Indo_iranians merging with Elamites. This Elamite element might be around ~40% but it was significant in the forming of Persians and since the Persians speak an Indo Iranian language, they are regarded as Indo European. if some modern Turkic groups would have spoken the language of their Iranic ancestors instead the language of their Altaic, we would now call them Indo_Iranians with varying Altaic admixture. But they speak Turkic which in itself is Altaic but has heavy Iranic elements, therefore it is something new which evolved out of two other elements.
The Iranic people were widely spread around 500 BC:
Attachment 54420
Yuezhe(Kushans) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
That's a figure from relevant period, depicting Yuezhi
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rogda...121477_600.jpg
that map is false. But, yes Iranic people were very widespread during that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
Maybe bad example. This was actually the reconstruction of Kennewick man, a standard native American by DNA, but looks very Eurasian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
The first part of your statement makes very much sense. Some posts before you wrote that without Iranic elements, there is no Turkic people, and that early Iranic element is what makes Turkic tribes what they are and sets them apart from Mongols. Do you have any anthropology or aDNA data backing up this suggestion? Maybe some genealogical data or any other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
I have been in contact with established linguists and linguistic studying people for long time and what I hear dfrom all of them is, the Iranic element in Turkic languages is so strong, so heavy that there are even some grammatical charecteristics which are typical iranic rather than Altaic, and if some element in a language is so strong that it already reached the grammer, this must be very strong part o the ancestry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Additional to that, if an "foreign" element is found in all modern people of the same group, this elements must be a substantial part of their ethnogesis.
The Iranic element is not just present in some Turkic groups while absent in other, it is a substantial part in all Turkic groups, which speaks for this beeing a founding element among the emerging of Turkic tribes.
Or is there any Turkic group which does not show Iranic, ethno_cultural and at least some genetic signature? I don't know of any.
Than in the Turkic tongues there are strong Iranic charecteristics, which can't simply be explained with loans, but as part of the first proto Turks. For example there are linguists who are pretty convinced that words like "Aksham" for night are actually East Iranic derived.
The word for I, "ben" which is substantial part of the Turkish language derives from a proto form "men" which in itself is definitely Iranic and derives from the root "men" which originally means "me" and became "I" in some Iranic tongues such as Persian which lost the Casus Obliquus. Than there is the "me" put on words in form of denial. Which is also typical Middle iranic grammatically. I can give example from some Kurdish dialects, were "me" is used as denial. "mece" , what means don't go, Turkish gitme "don't go". Middle Persian and I think modern Persian does also have this characteristic.
There are far more examples. This is why I say Iranic is substantial part of the Turkic ethnogenesis, and without an Iranic element Turkic wouldn't be existing as it is. And thats the case for Proto Turkic which is basically something in between Iranic and Mongolian.
you're giving too much credits to these retards. let them alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Look who arrived. My "neutral " (lol) Balkan dönme. Butthurt is it part of your hobby to skip throw topics and thumb down people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ölüezgi
Never mind, but I like to exchange our point of view. Only by this way we can understand each other better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ölüezgi
well then, good luck with understanding schizophrenic trolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
You mentioned some good aspects, and I can only agree with your subjective impression, but other people like me have this impression the other way around. I have left this subjective way of observing for a long time, I am more concentrated in a objective (Nostratic or Borean) way which in many cases explains similarities between distantly related languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
1. Did you ever asked yourself why two 1st person pronouns exist for the same meaning: I & me? In Turkic we have öz and min/men/bin/ben. Kurdish has ez and min. German has ich and mein. Japanese has wáǸ, bànù, ánù. The pronouns me and we in most world languages have the same linguistic base root *mV ('I, we'). In Turkic the number "one" reads as bir, but it is also used with the meaning "mono, single, someone, person". Also compare Proto-Germanic '*wīz' ("we") and Proto-Turkic '*biz' ("we"). The root, doesn't matter if plural or singular, is always *ba, *be, *bi, *ma, *me, *mi etc. in all proto-forms around the globe.
Indo-European and its closest relatives. 1. Grammar. Joseph Harold Greenberg Stanford University Press, 2000.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...7&d=1421710308
2. The negation suffix in Turkish has two forms: -ma and -me. In other Turkic languages like Kazakh it is -may and -mey. Japanese has a similar nagation suffix: -nai (archaic -mai). Compare tabemai ('not eat').
3. Also compare Turkic verbal suffix -mek/-mak and Germanic make/mach-. For more see: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...tic-allegories
The common 1st person pronoun among Uralics and Altaics btw:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...comparison.png
Ouh, and Petros, common sense in comparative linguistics is still that there is no need for typologically related languages to be also genetically related and vice versa. Proto-Indo-European including Nostratcic were agglutinative btw.
Bump it!
The Scytho-Iranian hypothesis, taken literally, would predict some genetic continuity from the ancient Indo-Iranian Scythians to their modern Indo-Iranian descendents. But archeological and genetic studies performed up to date consistently fail this test[citation needed], and instead consistently point to Uralic-Altaic genetic make-up (Voevoda M.I. et al. "Reconstruction ..."), detested by Iranist proponents for its Mongoloid/Lapponoid component unbecoming for pure "Arian" Indo-Europeans.
Not again ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alm_statue.jpg
You know this is going to cause a huge flame war now ...
Thats why I bumped it, thats why TA exists ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iranian Jesus
any info regarding its frequency in Pakistan and among which groups?
Z93 general or specific Z2125 mutation?Quote:
Originally Posted by lameduck
....
If you want to get the full data concerning the frequency of Z93 in Pakistan you have to get the full access for the Underhill et al 2014 paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by lameduck
^^ thanks I found an informative publication by some Pakistani university on groups in the country will go through it.
Here are most subclades of Z93. Pakistan Z93 looks like M780:Quote:
Originally Posted by lameduck
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yo928Hon9W...hg201450f3.jpg
Probably some 100 years ago, like this girl ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke
http://img4.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...aiywt62glv.jpg
More Iranid-ish looking, but that is a close betQuote:
Originally Posted by Velda
Proto-turks were in Siberia still, at the time of the Scythians.
I'm pretty sure the Scythians that migrated Eastwards, mixed with Mongolians which resulted in Turkic people, same for TochariansQuote:
Originally Posted by zarzian
Who deleted my post? Whoever did it, fuck you.
lol bro, I wasn't it. Try to answer in a civil manner, even if you are provoked, don't provoke back. I mean it good with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danishmend
This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Instinct
The only truth I guess :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleitus
Klar was dachtest du :thumb001:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Von einem Albaner mit Nietzsche Gedankengut? War ja auch nicht anders zu erwarten. Zoroaster hätte sich gefreut :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleitus
This is also true:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleitus
Quote:
Größeren Erfolg hatte Venedig bei der Unterstützung des albanischen
Widerstandes unter Skanderbeg, da Meḥmed dessen Versorgungswege über die
Adria nicht blockieren konnte und es seinen regulären Truppen nicht gelang, in
die unwirtlichen Gebirge Albaniens vorzudringen. Schließlich überließ er
Albanien irregulären turkmenischen Verbänden aus Anatolien, die im Laufe der
Zeit die albanische Bevölkerung dezimierten und sich schließlich in diesem
Gebiet ständig niederließen, so den Grundstock der muslimischen Bevölkerung
bildend, die heute Albanien bewohnt.
(Fischer Weltgeschichte)
http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handl...pdf?sequence=1
Bullshit Albanians score fully Tuscan. Es war Albanern schon immer verboten sich mit einer dreckigen bastard rasse wie den Türken zu vermischen siehe Kanun des Leke Dukagjini. Ich kann meine Väterliche sowohl als auch meine mütterliche linie 500 Jahre zurückverfolgen, dass können Bastarde wie Türken nicht.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphawolf
And Tuscans fully score Anatolian Turkic. klingelt es? Etruskische Vorfahren der Albaner!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleitus
and your last statement is not trueQuote:
Originally Posted by gültekin
what makes you or anyone else think people who spoke the same language or same language family didn't fight each other?
its a well known fact Sarmatian tribes fought Scythians and vice versa a they also fought against other neighbors, Greeks etc....
besides, this comes from the later era not the proto-Indo-European or Indo-Iranian period.
that's a little bit late in the time frame to be arguing for who the first Indo-Iranic or Indo-Europeans were.
the time you are talking about they had already settled and mixed with others, This stuff you show came from later.
you probably don't even know that the earliest kurgan burials came from south of the Caucasus and not even from the steppe or central asia, do you?