Scytho-Turkic Z93 branch Z2125 vs. Indo-Aryan migration theory

[Petros Houhoulis]

If you ask me Turkic languages preserved both linguistic elements, Satem and Centum.

Many languages have both Centum and Satem elements. Parts of the French language have been under Satemization for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum%..._Satem_concept

Satem-like features have arisen multiple times during history (e.g. French cent pron. [sã], Spanish ciento). As a result, it is sometimes difficult to firmly establish which languages were part of the original Satem diffusion and which were affected by secondary assibilation in a later time period. While extensive documentation of Latin and Old Swedish shows that the assibilation found in French and Swedish were later developments, there are not enough records of Dacian and Thracian to conclusively settle the issue of when their Satem-like features originated. Extensive lexical borrowing, such as Armenian from Iranian, may also add to the difficulty. The status of Armenian as a Satem language as opposed to a Centum language with secondary assibilation rests on the evidence of a very few words.

[Demhat]

This is blinkered thinking, very common among humans, but that's normal. The problem is Turkics have almost no founder effects for R. They have the most ancient R1b haplotypes for example. Another big problem is Basque R1b which is NON-Indo-European! Haplogroups do not correlate 100% with language families.

You are actually turning arguments against a Turkic origin of R* (Haplogroup R* is over 30000 years old how the fuck can any modern nationality be that old) for it.

It is actually quite the opposite almost all R in Turks is based on Bottleneck and founder effect. There is no "ancient " R1b in Turks but almost all of it is m73. The only basal R1b* (m343) in Central Asia so far is found among 13% of the Kurds from Kazakhstan who were settled there by Stalin. Otherwise all other R1b m343 is found in Western Asia.

[Proto-Shaman]

Many languages have both Centum and Satem elements. Parts of the French language have been under Satemization for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum%..._Satem_concept

Just saying because Turkic knows both forms:

kün - sün (day, light, sun)
köpek - söpek (male dog, female dog) etc..

Nostratic remains a fable for the moment. People cannot reconstruct properly Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Altaic, and some fool thinks he can trace Nostratic???

Nostratic is the rising sun in the linguistics

Herodotus didn't say anything about the Scythian langauge, he simply preserved the words, and his knowledge of Persian is questionable at best. You cannot destroy that evidence... You never will.

The evidence is Abaev not Herodotus. Abaev is the father of the fake Scytho-Iranian acceptance. Pseudo-linguistics at its best. If Herodotus knew what Abaev did to his works, he would have beaten him to the moon

Klyosov is an idiot, and he is not the only one. Arnaiz-Villena did the same shit, and Greeks like Triandafyllidis are also doing the same shit. His claims in linguistics are lame - to say the least - since he is NOT a linguist, and his lies are laughable. Take a look at this one for example:

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

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

THE YANKEES INVENTED THE INTERNET, NOT THE RUSSKIS!!!

SOMEBODY TELL THAT IDIOT TO STOP MAKING RIDICULOUS CLAIMS...

Sorry, but your argument is blasphemy and has no foundation. This happens when people have no qualitative argumentation.

We are not in the 18th century, and the various Eurocentric theories - especially about race - have been thrown out of the window ever since the end of WWII. You'd better stop complaining for bias nowadays...

Eurocentrism is an interdisciplinary term for a start

Nobody said that the Kazakhs are the only Turkic nation. What I said is that the C haplogroup is present in ALL OF THE ALTAIC SPEAKING PEOPLE. Get used to it!

And haplogroup R is representing the main bulk of the Turkic peoples, then comes J, then N, and then Q, and then C. Talking about getting used to it?

We are not talking about North America, but even in North America a huge number of European colonists belong to the R1b haplogroup. Don't masturbate.

Colonialist R1b is based on new mutations from Europe (very young). But Native American R1b mutations are ancient from Asia. You don't even know the ABC of genetics, what a waste of time

Those R1b could have spoken Indo-European in the past, and most probably they did.

Maybe in your imagination? What you have said is not even registered as a credible theory.

Just because the Turks speak Turkish today, it doesn't mean that the people of Turkey always spoke Turkish. Try to use your brain for a while!

I mean the general Turkic R1b-M73 areas:


What a coincidence that Turkic has the most ancient R1b haplotypes.

Nobody said that Haplogroups correlate even 1% with language families. The point was that all language families have at least a minimal amount of genetic material surviving from the earliest users of the language family.

So what's your problem?

I don't know which Haplogroup relates to the Basque language, I never looked for it! It is difficult to estimate anything about the Basques, because we cannot fit them in any language family.

Clever boy, Basques are 90% R1b, but still NON-Indo-European.

This sentence was following the sentence Another view accepts Altaic as a valid family but includes in it only Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. It means that everybody accepts that Korean and Japanese are part of the family nowadays, unlike in the past. In any case, another sentence makes clear of what the meaning is:
Most proponents of Altaic continue to support the inclusion of Korean and Japanese.^[5]

Holy shit, your knowledge of English is not very well, isn't it?

This view (you have mentioned above) "... was widespread prior to the 1960s, but has almost no supporters among specialists today.[4]"

Both Micro-Altaic and Macro-Altaic are ACCEPTED EQUALLY.

Where is it written? In a Petros Houhoulis guide book?

The trunk of Greeks is J/E Middle Eastern/African genes, but the Greek language is INDOEUROPEAN. That's because the Greeks conquered the Neolithic farmers of Greece and imposed their language upon them. The same applies with the Turkics: They conquered other people and imposed their language upon them. Do you seriously suggest that Turkey speaks Turkish because it has a lot of R genes? Fuck, their R genes are even fewer than the Greek R genes!!! In either case, it is irrelevant: We know that the people of Turkey begun speaking Turkish only AFTER the Turks conquered Turkey...

Central Asian R1b lines always spoke Turkic. Turkey is another case of its own. Don't derail from the topic.

This proves nothing at all. He lives in the center of the largest continent of Earth, so I wouldn't be surprised...

So then, let's wait for the next central Asian Turk breaking the record

C is common in ALL OF THE ALTAIC SPEAKING PEOPLE. R is not present in the Japanese or the Korean people. Even if the Japanese and Korean languages only have an "aerial" relationship with Turkish (as you suggest but nobody accepts since the 1960's) then they wouldn't only share linguistic traits, they would also share genes... and THIS IS NOT THE CASE...

This is not true. Korean and Japanese do not just share an areal relationship with Turkish but also an areal relationship with C. Yakut SAKA Turks for example have 90% N, haplogroup C is not common among them. The same is evident for other Turkic nations.

You really want to create a relationship with Australian Aboriginal languages?



___________________

Artek, Artek, Artek, now I see your level of knowledge.

[Proto-Shaman]

You are actually turning arguments against a Turkic origin of R* (Haplogroup R* is over 30000 years old how the fuck can any modern nationality be that old) for it.

No, I am defending Nostratic-like origins. Because it's the only logical non-dogmatic theory.

It is actually quite the opposite almost all R in Turks is based on Bottleneck and founder effect. There is no "ancient " R1b in Turks but almost all of it is m78. The only basal R1b* (m343) in Central Asia so far is found among 13% of the Kurds from Kazakhstan who were settled there by Stalin. Otherwise all other R1b m343 is found in Western Asia.

This is not true. Turkic R1b is 16.000 years old and shares the oldest common ancestor with European R1b. These are information you should have known before arguing.

[Demhat]

with a "Nostratic like " origin of P* and K* in general I could agree. Since Q, R, N O etc all share a common origin as "Eurasian" lineages.

But 16000 years of Turkic origin? Man use common sense.

[Petros Houhoulis]

Just saying because Turkic knows both forms:
kün - sün (day, light, sun)
köpek - söpek (male dog, female dog) etc..
Nostratic is the rising sun in the linguistics

Hope dies last I guess... But Nostratic would not help the Altaic cause, and it is not the rising sun. The Sun language theory has already set in the mud of the Islamic mythology (not to mention shit!!!)

The evidence is Abaev not Herodotus. Abaev is the father of the fake Scytho-Iranian acceptance. Pseudo-linguistics at its best. If Herodotus knew what Abaev did to his works, he would have beaten him to the moon

The source is Herodotus. Read AGAIN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia...an_etymologies

Herodotus' Scythian etymologies

The Greek historian Herodotus provides another source of Scythian; he reports that the Scythians called the Amazons Oiorpata, and explains the name as a compound of oior, meaning "man", and pata, meaning "to kill" (Hist. 4,110).

• Most scholars associate oior "man" with Avestan vīra- "man, hero", Sanskrit vīra-, Latin vir (gen. virī) "man, hero, husband",^[12][13] PIE *u̯iHro-. Various explanations account for pata "kill":
  
  1. Avestan paiti- "lord", Sanskrit pati-, PIE *poti-, cf. Lat. potestate (i.e. "man-ruler");^[14]
  2. Ossetian maryn "kill", Pashto mrəl, Sanskrit mārayati, PIE *mer- "die" (confusion of Greek Μ and Π);^[15]
  3. Ossetian fædyn "cleave", Sanskrit pātayati "fell", PIE *peth₂- "fall".^[16]
  
  
• Alternatively, one scholar suggests Iranian aiwa- "one" + warah- "breast",^[17] the Amazons believed to have removed a breast to aid drawing a bow, according to some ancient folklorists, and as reflected in Greek folk-etymology: a- (privative) + mazos, "without breast".

Elsewhere Herodotus explains the name of the mythical one-eyed tribe Arimaspoi as a compound of the Scythian words arima, meaning "one", and spu, meaning "eye" (Hist. 4,27).

• Some scholars connect arima "one" with Ossetian ærmæst "only", Avestic airime "quiet", Greek erēmos "empty", PIE *h₁(e)rh₁mo-?, and spu "eye" with Avestic spas- "foretell", Sanskrit spaś-, PIE *speḱ- "see".^[18]
• However, Iranian usually expresses "one" and "eye" with words like aiwa- and čašman- (Ossetian īw and cæst).
• Other scholars reject Herodotus' etymology and derive the ethnonym Arimaspoi from Iranian aspa- "horse" instead.^[19]
• Or the first part of the name may reflect something like Iranian raiwant- "rich", cf. Ossetian riwæ "rich".^[20]

Herodotus' Scythian theonyms

Herodotus also gives a list of Scythian theonyms (Hist. 4.59):

• Tabiti = Hestia. Perhaps related to Sanskrit Tapatī, a heroine in the Mahābhārata, literally "the burning (one)".^[21]
• Papaios = Zeus. Either "father" (Herodotus) or "protector", Avestan, Sanskrit pā- "protect", PIE *peh₃-.^[22]
• Api = Gaia. Either "mother"^[23] or "water", Avestan, Sanskrit āp-, PIE Hep-^[24]
• Goitosyros or Oitosyros = Apollo. Perhaps Avestan gaēθa- "animal" + sūra- "rich".^[25]
• Argimpasa or Artimpasa = Aphrodite Urania. To Ossetic art and Pashto or, "fire", Avestan āθra-.^[26]
• Thagimasadas = Poseidon.

Sorry, but your argument is blasphemy and has no foundation. This happens when people have no qualitative argumentation.

It seems that Klyosov is a self-promoting raskal. Any reasonable person would have deducted this conclusion by now. Are his works peer-reviewed? Or are they complete bullcrap like he is?

Eurocentrism is an interdisciplinary term for a start

Eurocentrism/Aryanism/Racism died as a result of WWII. Get used to it!

And haplogroup R is representing the main bulk of the Turkic peoples, then comes J, then N, and then Q, and then C. Talking about getting used to it?

The bulk of the Greek people have E1b1b/J2 genes, but nobody suggests that those genes gave birth to the Greek language. The Greek language is an Indo-European language, and the entire Indo-European family is based upon the haplogroup R. The folks in Sardinia are also predominantly I2, but their language is also predominantly Indo-European. Why don't they speak a language deriving from the I haplogroup instead of the Indo-European language which relates to the R haplogroup?
The Altaic speakers used to belong to the C haplogroup, but converted huge masses of the R haplogroup in the long term. There is no other explanation!

Colonialist R1b is based on new mutations from Europe (very young). But Native American R1b mutations are ancient from Asia.

I am not interested in the Amerindian R1b. This is further proof that R people switched to a non-synthetic language, since the most of the Amerindian people do not speak a synthetic language... Yet the R haplogroup is in the majority of the Amerindians in NorthEast Canada! Only the Navajo, Nahuatl, Mohawk, Quechua and a few other Amerindian languages - in most probability - copied the synthetic language spoken by their R haplogroup ancestors.

You don't even know the ABC of genetics, what a waste of time

We are not debating genetics. We are debating linguistics, and we use genetics as one of the few tools available... Nobody denies that the trunk of the Turkic speaking people are R today. What is denied is the notion that those R haplogroup people were Altaic speaking in the past, especially before the Turkish domination over them!

Maybe in your imagination? What you have said is not even registered as a credible theory.

It is more than a probability. I am creating my own version of "Nostratic" I guess, just as you make yours!

I mean the general Turkic R1b-M73 areas:

What a coincidence that Turkic has the most ancient R1b haplotypes.

Demhat disagrees that the most ancient R1b haplotypes are Turkic, and in any way it is irrelevant, since they could have been Turkicized over many thousand years... Like so many people, including the modern Turks!

So what's your problem?

My problem is that we are looking for the ORIGINAL SPEAKERS OF ALTAIC, not the modern speakers of Altaic who have switched to an Altaic language after a conquest...

Clever boy, Basques are 90% R1b, but still NON-Indo-European.

The Basque language is related to some of the remaining 10% of the genes, which is actually a further proof of my theory, because in the same token, even if 90% of the Altaic speakers were either R1a or R1b, this would not be proof that the Altaic language originates in either haplogroup, just as the Basque language does not originate in the R1b haplogoup!!!
BTW, you and Klyosov should coordinate each other and decide whether Altaic presumably originates from R1a (as he hallucinates) or from a subclade of R1b [R1b-M73] (as you hallucinate) because you are getting more ridiculous by the hour!!!

Holy shit, your knowledge of English is not very well, isn't it?

Most proponents of Altaic continue to support the inclusion of Korean and Japanese.^[5]

This view (you have mentioned above) "... was widespread prior to the 1960s, but has almost no supporters among specialists today.[4]"

Exactly: People used to think that Japanese and Korean were not part of Altaic prior to the 1960's, but this view is COLLAPSED TODAY. GET USED TO IT!!!

Where is it written? In a Petros Houhoulis guide book?

I quote wikipedia. Maybe you should read the same passage a million times until you understand it!

Central Asian R1b lines always spoke Turkic. Turkey is another case of its own. Don't derail from the topic.

You can't prove that, no extant sources survive, and you can't prove why Altaic speakers in Korea and Japan have no R1b lineage. Your fable is crumbling!!!

So then, let's wait for the next central Asian Turk breaking the record

It would still be irrelevant, because you can't possibly know what language the ancestor of any of those Turks spoke! Them speaking Turkish today is as much relevant as the Turks of Turkey speaking Turkish today!!!

This is not true. Korean and Japanese do not just share an areal relationship with Turkish but also an areal relationship with C. Yakut SAKA Turks for example have 90% N, haplogroup C is not common among them. The same is evident for other Turkic nations.

That is exactly the problem: Even if the relation between all Altaic languages is aerial, the "aerial mix" would not have taken place without a genetic mix as well (since there was no religion like Judaism to apply rigid enforcment of blood relations) and the conclusion is that all of the Altaic languages begun with the C haplogroup, which is shared by all of them! It doesn't matter how common the C haplogroup is in ANY population. The Hungarians have as little as 0.5% of the N haplogroup, and yet they speak an Uralic language shared by other people whose common link is the N haplogroup as well!
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

[QUOTE]Region/Haplogroup	I1	I2*/I2a	I2b	R1a	R1b	G	J2	J*/J1	E1b1b	T	Q	N

Hungary

8.5

16

2

29.5

18.5

3.5

6.5

3

8

0

0

0.5

You see, a 0.5% of all the Hungarians assimilated the other 99.5% into the Hungarian language in the long term!
The rest of the N haplogroup in Europe south of Estonia and Finland were absorbed by the Indo-European peoples!

You really want to create a relationship with Australian Aboriginal languages?

There is a distant relationship. The Australian Aboriginal languages, as well as the Amerindian languages, as well as the Altaic languages are all agglutinative languages!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination#Eurasia

Eurasia

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2014)

Examples of agglutinative languages include the Uralic languages, such as Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian. These have highly agglutinated expressions in daily usage, and most words are bisyllabic or longer. Grammatical information expressed by adpositions in Western Indo-European languages is typically found in suffixes.

Hungarian uses extensive agglutination in almost all and any part of it. The suffixes follow each other in special order, and can be heaped in extreme amount, resulting words conveying complex meanings in very compact form. An example is fiaiéi where the root "fi-" means "son", the subsequent four vowels are all separate suffixes, and the whole word means "[properties] of his/her sons". The nested possessive structure and expression of plurals is quite remarkable (note that Hungarian uses no genders).

Almost all Austronesian languages, such as Malay, and most Philippine languages, also belong to this category, thus enabling them to form new words from simple base forms. The Indonesian and Malay word mempertanggungjawabkan is formed by adding active-voice, causative and transitive affixes to the compound verb tanggung jawab, which means "to account for". In Tagalog (and its standardised register, Filipino), nakakapágpabagabag ("that which is upsetting/disturbing") is formed from the root bagabag ("upsetting" or "disquieting").

Japanese is also an agglutinating language, adding information such as negation, passive voice, past tense, honorific degree and causality in the verb form. Common examples would be hatarakaseraretara (働かせられたら), which combines causative, passive or potential, and conditional conjugations to arrive at two meanings depending on context "if (subject) had been made to work..." and "if (subject) could make (object) work", and tabetakunakatta (食べたくなかった), which combines desire, negation, and past tense conjugations to mean "(subject) did not want to eat".

Turkish is another agglutinating language: the expression Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışçasına is pronounced as one word in Turkish, but it can be translated into English as "as if you were one of those whom we could not make resemble the Czechoslovakian people."

All Dravidian languages, including Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Tamil, are agglutinative. Agglutination is used to very high degrees both in formal written forms in Telugu.

Agglutination is also a common feature of Basque. The conjugations of verbs, for example, are done by adding different prefixes or suffixes to the root of the verb: dakartzat, which means 'I bring them', is formed by da (indicates present tense), kar (root of the verb ekarri → bring), tza (indicates plural) and t (indicates subject, in this case, "I"). Another example would be the declination: Etxean = "In the house" where etxe = house.

Americas

Agglutination is used very heavily in most Native American languages, such as the Inuit languages, Nahuatl, Quechua, Tz'utujil, Kaqchikel, Cha'palaachi and K'iche, where one word can contain enough morphemes to convey the meaning of what would be a complex sentence in other languages. Conversely, Navajo contains affixes for some uses, but overlays them in such unpredictable and inseparable ways that it is often referred to as a fusional language.

Somewhere between the Indo-European languages and the "Nostratic" languages there is a link: The Agglutinative languages (or rather, the most of them) which are based upon the C, N and other haplogroups, while the IndoEuropean languages are based upon the R haplogroup!
Isn't it obvious???

___________________

Artek, Artek, Artek, now I see your level of knowledge.

[Petros Houhoulis]

with a "Nostratic like " origin of P* and K* in general I could agree. Since Q, R, N O etc all share a common origin as "Eurasian" lineages.

But 16000 years of Turkic origin? Man use common sense.

There is no such a thing as "Nostratic languages". Uralic, Indo-European, Altaic and other langauges share aerial features, but in the end:

The R haplogroup originates speaking a synthetic language

The C and N haplogroups (and perhaps many others in-between) originate speaking an agglutinative language.

...And that's all folks!

[Pahli]

There is no such a thing as "Nostratic languages". Uralic, Indo-European, Altaic and other langauges share aerial features, but in the end:

The R haplogroup originates speaking a synthetic language

The C and N haplogroups (and perhaps many others in-between) originate speaking an agglutinative language.

...And that's all folks!

Why do you even bother discussing with these people? It has been proven that Scythians and Sarmatians are of Iranian origin and spoke an Iranic language. They have nothing to do with Turks.

I'll give you Turks a short one: Turks originated from West Mongolia and China. They invaded Central Asia after the Scythians and Sarmatians migrated to Europe. And shortly after the Huns came.

[Proto-Shaman]

edit. delete

[zarzian]

Most basal R1b' have been found exclusively in West Asia especificaly western Iran near the Armenian highlands, although if I remember correctly, there was a descent study that found a deeper clade in Nepal, either way nothing to do with Turks.