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

[Pahli]

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.

But you have to wage a war just to make them understand so.

[Proto-Shaman]

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!!!)

What do dogs have in common with a sun language? is that a kind of Petros style argumentation?

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

One of the sources of the Scythian languages is Herodotus, that's right. But the interpretations you are presenting are mostly pseudo-linguistic attempts of modern scholars.

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?

Yes, many of his works are peer-reviewed. Just because you don't like him this doesn't mean you can bash him aside. Dna doesn't lie.

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

Read:

"... the first IE specialists – imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century - chose to see the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a superior race of warriors and colonizers, who would have conquered the allegedly "pre-IE" Neolithic Europe in the Copper Age, and brought their 'superior' civilization to it. (...). At the same time, while the concept of the Arian super-race gave shape to the myth of the Battle-Axe horse-riding invaders, another myth, within the Arian larger myth, emerged: Pangermanism. Within the Arian superior race, the German father-founders of IE studies saw the Germanic people as the supermen, the purest and the closest to the original blessed race, and chose the Germanic area as the Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980). Interestingly, also the central idea of the NDT, namely that the inventors of farming were the Indo-Europeans, rather than the 'real' Middle-Eastern, Sumerian and/or Semitic, people, is yet another vein of this often unwitting ethnocentrism that runs through the history of research on IE origins."

source: http://www.continuitas.org/intro.html

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?

Again,

1. R in central Asia is Turkic:


2. R in North America is Amerindian:


3. Albania, Greece, Italy and Iran, all "IE's", but not predominantly R:


4. Basque R is not IE.

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!

Then "Altaics" forgot to build a time machine to convert the last Australian Aboriginals into Altaics

I am not interested in the Amerindian R1b. This is further proof that R people switched to a non-IndoEuropean language, since the Amerindian R people do not speak Indo-European... Yet they are the majority of Amerindians in NorthEast Canada!

Ok let's fix: "R people switched to a non-IndoEuropean language, since the Amerindian R people do not speak Indo-European"

We are not debating genetics. We are debating linguistics, and we use genetics as one of the few tools available...

I was just saying that Amerindian R is ancient and not from colonial times.

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!

Fine but genetics says "fuck off" to linguistics. Do you understand?

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

Sorry, but Turkic (central Asian, Siberian) R1b lines are the most ancient. And R1b in Asia is almost only common among Turkics, not IE's. Ancient Time machine?

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!

Dna can't lie for a start. There is no basis for a Turkification of R1b lineages in Asia. Scholarship is shrouded in silence concerning this, sorry.

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...

Original Altaics did never existed and a language shifting never happened. Best proof are R1b-M73 and R1a-Z93.

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!!!

Petros Houhoulis, fortunately your hardcore absurd theory doesn't even exist

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

This is correct. And what was your point? Petros, you still didn't improved your English! up

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!!!

Let's fix:

"Another view accepts Altaic as a valid family but includes in it only Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. This view was widespread prior to the 1960s, but has almost no supporters among specialists today.[4]"

Japanese? a..n..d Korean? wtf? Petros learn English please, I have better things to do!

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

Yes, pleeease show me that Micro-Altaic a...n...d Macro-Altaic are equally accepted language families. Don't forget to look into Petros Houhoulis guidebook

You can't prove that,

The best proof is that Turkic R1b line are the oldest

and you can't prove why Altaic speakers in Korea and Japan have no R1b lineage. Your fable is crumbling!!!

because Altaic doesn't exist and R1b is a 18,500 years old Eurasian haplogroup.

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!!!

Let's fix: Turks don't even exist... up

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
...

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!

Altaic languages? 53,000 years ago?

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

Hungarian is another cherry picked topic. Anyway:

Habsburg Propaganda about Hungarian Language and History

The pseudo-scientific status of the Finno-Ugric theory

The Myth of the Uralic language family (Hungarian reconsidered)

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???

no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language

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

Uralic, IE, and Altaic don't exist. Proponents of these dogmas are just old bones splitters. They will belong to the long forgotten past in the next 100 years. The only solution is a Nostratic-like model.

The R haplogroup originates speaking a synthetic language

To bad that synthetic languages also include Turkic and Amerindian

• 1. Synthetic
•• 1.1. Polysynthetic
•• 1.2. Fusional
•• 1.3. Agglutinative
•• 1.4. Oligosynthetic

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

...And that's all folks!

To bad that Na-Dené languages are mostly polysynthetic and less agglutinative. And to bad that Armenian, Bantu, Dravidian, Kartvelian, Berber, Persian languages are agglutinative

[Demhat]

R1b* (that is R1b with no subsequent distinguishing SNP mutations) is extremely rare. The only population yet recorded with a definite significant proportion of R1b* are the Kurds of southeastern Kazakhstan with 13%.[7] However, more recently, a large study of Y-chromosome variation in Iran, revealed R1b* as high as 4.3% among Persian sub-populations.[19]

R1b m343 (basal R1b) has it's highest frequency around West Iran/Eastern Kurdistan + Azeris and North Mesopotamia/Central and South Kurdistan.

High frequency of R1b is ok but it doesn't tell much about the origin. Armenians are 30% R1b but almost exclusively from the Balkan L23 variant. Turkmens are heavy in R1b too but almost exclusively m73

[Proto-Shaman]

Some of haplotypes, however, from seperate branches, the most remarkable branch is most remote from the trunk, hence, the most ancient, (...) contains 12 haplotypes which all belong to R1b1a1-M73 and R1b-M343 subclades, and provided by Uighurs and the close tribes of the Naxi, Han and Tu (Zhong et al., 2010). All the 12 haplotypes are derived from the base haplotype 13 24 15 11/10 X X X 12 X 14/13 12 30, and contain collectively 65 mutations from it. Using the “linear” formula, we obtain 65/12/.013 = 417 → 619 conditional generations (the arrow here is a correction for back mutations), or 15,475 ± 2500 years from their common ancestor (the calculation is explained in the Materials and Methods section). This date is in a fair agreement with 16,000 ± 1400 years from a common ancestor of R1b haplotypes (Klyo- sov, 2008a, 2009d) (...) . It also indicates that the R1b haplogroup arose in Central Asia, and, apparently, in the Altay region in South Siberia, where their upstream haplogroups NOP → NO + P; P → R + Q; R → R1 + R2; R1 → R1a + R1b all migrated and lived there during the time period between 52 and 20-15 thousand years before present (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012b).

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...?paperID=19567

[Petros Houhoulis]

What do dogs have in common with a sun language? is that a kind of Petros style argumentation?

You are trying the same shit twice... You never learn!

One of the sources of the Scythian languages is Herodotus, that's right. But the interpretations you are presenting are mostly pseudo-linguistic attempts of modern scholars.

If that was true then scholars of Altaic would have interpreted Herodotus' Scythian words as Altaic words, which is NOT THE CASE. Perhaps you should grow a brain and try to reason why the surviving Scythian words don't fit into any modern Altaic language...

Yes, many of his works are peer-reviewed. Just because you don't like him this doesn't mean you can bash him aside. Dna doesn't lie.

DNA doesn't lie, but you are trying to prove that an x people did never change their language over the millenia, which is a false assumption.

Read:

"... the first IE specialists – imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century - chose to see the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a superior race of warriors and colonizers, who would have conquered the allegedly "pre-IE" Neolithic Europe in the Copper Age, and brought their 'superior' civilization to it. (...). At the same time, while the concept of the Arian super-race gave shape to the myth of the Battle-Axe horse-riding invaders, another myth, within the Arian larger myth, emerged: Pangermanism. Within the Arian superior race, the German father-founders of IE studies saw the Germanic people as the supermen, the purest and the closest to the original blessed race, and chose the Germanic area as the Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980). Interestingly, also the central idea of the NDT, namely that the inventors of farming were the Indo-Europeans, rather than the 'real' Middle-Eastern, Sumerian and/or Semitic, people, is yet another vein of this often unwitting ethnocentrism that runs through the history of research on IE origins."

source: http://www.continuitas.org/intro.html

You quote Alinei, who nobody takes seriously, and you confuse a few things: the new IndoEuropean theory by Gimbutas is divorced from the development of agriculture, and everybody know it. In fact, Alineis' theory is basically rubbish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoli...tinuity_Theory

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (or PCT, Italian La teoria della continuità), since 2010 relabelled as a "paradigm", as in Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm or PCP), is a hypothesis suggesting that the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) can be traced back to the Upper Paleolithic, several millennia earlier than the Chalcolithic or at the most Neolithic estimates in other scenarios of Proto-Indo-European origins.
As advanced by Mario Alinei in his Origini delle Lingue d’Europa (Origins of the Languages of Europe), published in two volumes in 1996 and 2000,^[1] the PCT posits that the advent of Indo-European languages should be linked to the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia from Africa in the Upper Paleolithic. Employing "lexical periodization", Alinei arrives at a timeline deeper than even that of Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis.^[2]
Since 2004, an informal workgroup of scholars who support the Paleolithic Continuity Theory has been held online.^[3] Members of the group (referred to as "Scientific Committee" in the website) include linguists Xaverio Ballester (University of Valencia) and Francesco Benozzo (University of Bologna), prehistorian Marcel Otte (Université de Liège) and anthropologist Henry Harpending (University of Utah).^[4]
The Paleolithic Continuity Theory is distinctly a minority view as it enjoys very little academic support, serious discussion being limited to a small circle of scholars. It is not listed by Mallory among the proposals for the origins of the Indo-European languages that are widely discussed and considered credible within academia.^[5]

Alinei is no better goon than Klyosov, and nobody takes any of them seriously!

Again,

1. R in central Asia is Turkic:

The question is not what it is today, but what it was several thousands of years ago. We are looking for the sources of languages, not the current speakers of any language.

2. R in North America is Amerindian:

The question is not what it is today, but what it was several thousands of years ago. We are looking for the sources of languages, not the current speakers of any language.

3. Albania, Greece, Italy and Iran, all "IE's", but not predominantly R:

If they are not predominantly R, then why are they Indo-European? Can you explain that? This is exactly where your theory fails: There are people today who speak a language that was not spoken thousand of years ago by their ancestors in their location, and this applies equally to South Balkaners (E3b) North Balkaners (I2a) South Italians and Turks (J2) and so on. Why shouldn't the same apply to the Turkic people of Central Asia? Are they immune to invasions and changes of language???

4. Basque R is not IE.

R is synthetic, and Basque R would still be a synthetic language.

Then "Altaics" forgot to build a time machine to convert the last Australian Aboriginals into Altaics

All of the C haplogroup speakers have originated as speakers of an agglutinative language, the split into Altaic/Amerindian/Aboriginal took place later.

Ok let's fix: "R people switched to a non-IndoEuropean language, since the Amerindian R people do not speak Indo-European"

This is what I said:

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.

Not what you claim!

I was just saying that Amerindian R is ancient and not from colonial times.

Irrelevant. People can change their language at any time.

Fine but genetics says "fuck off" to linguistics. Do you understand?

Genetics gives us a more complex image of the world. It doesn't say "fuck off" to linguistics. It is impossible to correlate modern haplogroups with modern languages (this is where you are screwing it) but we can try to detect which haplogroup gave rise to which language family in the past (which is what I am doing!)

Sorry, but Turkic (central Asian, Siberian) R1b lines are the most ancient. And R1b in Asia is almost only common among Turkics, not IE's. Ancient Time machine?

No time machine, even if what you say is correct, people can be conquered and change their language at any time. You can't prove that Turkish was spoken anywhere more than 13 centuries ago. What makes you believe that the people speaking Turkish today must have always speaking Turkish?

Dna can't lie for a start. There is no basis for a Turkification of R1b lineages in Asia. Scholarship is shrouded in silence concerning this, sorry.

If science is silent, then how do you prove a non-Turkification, especially in light of the fact that non-Turkic people as far as in modern Turkey were Turkified during the last 10 centuries? How can you prove that R1b was Turkish 10.000 years ago when you cannot prove that it was Turkish 1.000 years ago? Do you know what happened during the last 10.000 years?

Original Altaics did never existed and a language shifting never happened. Best proof are R1b-M73 and R1a-Z93.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a language family based upon genetics alone? You need to study linguistics in order to prove language theories? What you suggest is outrightly INSANE!

Petros Houhoulis, fortunately your hardcore absurd theory doesn't even exist

Basque is not related to any language in Europe today! It could be a remnant of the haplogroup I, G, J, E or even Q, all of those haplogroups scoring 0.5 or more, since the haplogroup N scores 0.5 in Hungary, and Hungary is an Uralic language, and all of the Uralic speakers outside Hungary have even more significant traces of N.

This is correct. And what was your point? Petros, you still didn't improved your English! up

Korean and Japanese are part of Altaic. If you believe that Altaic doesn't exist, that is your problem. How could Korean and Japanese be part of an inexistent linguistic family?

Let's fix:

"Another view accepts Altaic as a valid family but includes in it only Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. This view was widespread prior to the 1960s, but has almost no supporters among specialists today.[4]"

Yes, because Japanese and Korean are also part of the group now!

Japanese? a..n..d Korean? wtf? Petros learn English please, I have better things to do!

Japanese AND Korean are part of the Altaic language family today. Get used to it!

Yes, pleeease show me that Micro-Altaic a...n...d Macro-Altaic are equally accepted language families. Don't forget to look into Petros Houhoulis guidebook

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

Micro-Altaic is a subset of Macro-Altaic today. Do you know set theory?

A is Micro-Altaic, and B is Macro-Altaic:

The best proof is that Turkic R1b line are the oldest

It's not a proof. Older lineages are not less susceptible to subjugation and change of language than newer lineages. Stop having that weird fetish with older lineages!
If an older lineage of Amerindians were conquered by the Yankees and forced to speak English, while a newer lineage of Amerindians fled and manage to maintain its' language, what would that prove?

because Altaic doesn't exist and R1b is a 18,500 years old Eurasian haplogroup.

Altaic exists, either you like it or not. It is very fragmented because it has few samples which are as much widespread as IndoEuropean in the old world - but IndoEuropean has by far more languages, by far more written accounts of its' existence and more evidence to draw upon in general. Whether R1b is 18,500 old Eurasian haplogroup or 50,000 old Eurasian haplogroup is irrelevant. What is relevant is that R gave rise to synthetic langauges, while C gave rise to agglutinative languages - including the Americas and Australia!

Let's fix: Turks don't even exist...

Turks exist too, just as the Altaic language exists. Don't destroy everything.

Altaic languages? 53,000 years ago?

C gave rise to the most of the agglutinative languages that still exist today.

Hungarian is another cherry picked topic. Anyway:

Habsburg Propaganda about Hungarian Language and History

You can masturbate all you like, but Sumerian is basically related to Dravidian, not to and Uralic or Altaic languages. It is also agglutinative though! The word "Ur" (town, city, settlement) still exists in most dravidian languages! Hungarian has no relation with the Neolithic farmers for sure, neither genetic not linguistic! All of the Uralic languages are spoken near the North pole, no other language is centered further from a potential cradle of agriculture than the Uralic languages!!!

The pseudo-scientific status of the Finno-Ugric theory

This link is in the bottom of the wikipedia page about the Uralic languages, under the title "Rebel Uralists", and lists a mere 4 scientists who dispute the Uralic language family. The beginning of the page leaves no question though:

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

The Uralic languages /jʊˈrælɨk/ (sometimes called Uralian /jʊˈreɪliən/ languages) constitute a language family of some 38^[2] languages spoken by approximately 25 million people. The Uralic languages with the most native speakers are Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian, which are official languages of Hungary, Finland, and Estonia, respectively, and of the European Union. Other Uralic languages with significant numbers of speakers are Erzya, Moksha, Mari, Udmurt, and Komi, which are officially recognized languages in various regions of Russia.
The name "Uralic" derives from the fact that areas where the languages are spoken spread on both sides of the Ural Mountains. Also, the original homeland (Urheimat) is commonly hypothesized to lie in the vicinity of the Urals.
Finno-Ugric is sometimes used as a synonym for Uralic, though Finno-Ugric is widely understood to exclude the Samoyedic languages.^[3]

In fact there are more question marks about the Altaic langauges than the Uralic languages. The Uralic language family is accepted by the vast majority of scholars, whether you like it or not!

The Myth of the Uralic language family (Hungarian reconsidered)

Kunnap is an IDIOT! Look at what he claims:

Geneticists look at Finno-Ugrians as pure Europoids (Caucasoids) and Samoyeds as pure Mongoloids. Geneticists are strictly asking for our help. They say: we have a lot of genetic data but no idea how to work with these data. Give us such ideas, theories, hypotheses and we will check them. Geneticists cannot work with their databanks without concrete aims – databanks are so large that they overload the computers: the capacity of computers ends. Uralists must help them.

Even a 5 year old kid can see the relation between the haplogroup N and the Uralic languages. Take a look morons:




Furthermore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns#T...f_ethnic_Finns

A hugely controversial theory is so-called refugia. This was proposed in the 1990s by Kalevi Wiik, a professor emeritus of phonetics at the University of Turku. According to this theory, Finno-Ugric speakers spread north as the Ice age ended. They populated central and northern Europe, while Basque speakers populated western Europe. As agriculture spread from the south-east into Europe, the Indo-European languages spread among the hunter-gatherers. In this process, both the hunter-gatherers speaking Finno-Ugric and those speaking Basque learned how to cultivate land and became Indo-Europeanized. According to Wiik, this is how the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic languages were formed. The linguistic ancestors of modern Finns did not switch their language due to their isolated location.^[42] The main supporters of Wiik's theory are Professor Ago Künnap (Univ. of Tartu), Professor Kyösti Julku (Univ. of Oulu) and Associate Professor Angela Marcantonio (Univ. of Rome). Wiik has not presented his theories in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Many scholars in Finno-Ugrian studies have strongly criticized the theory. Especially Professor Raimo Anttila, Petri Kallio and brothers Ante and Aslak Aikio have renounced Wiik's theory with strong words, hinting strongly to pseudoscience and even at right-wing political biases among Wiik's supporters.^[41][43] Moreover, some dismissed the entire idea of refugia, due to the existence even today of arctic and subarctic peoples. The most heated debate took place in the Finnish journal Kaltio during autumn 2002. Since then, the debate has calmed, each side retaining their positions.^[44] While the refugium theory proved unpopular among Finns, substantial genotype analyses across the greater European genetic landscape have mostly confirmed the Last Glacial Maximum refugiums to be correct and have substantial backing of the greater scientific community.^{[45][46][47][48][49]} But this does not in anyway corroborate or prove that these 'refugia' spoke Uralic/Finnic, as it belies wholly independent variables that are not necessarily coeval (i.e. language spreads and genetic expansions can occur independetly, at different times and in different directions).

In other words, the theories of Wiik and Kunnap are nationalistic and not part of mainstream academia...

no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language
Uralic, IE, and Altaic don't exist. Proponents of these dogmas are just old bones splitters. They will belong to the long forgotten past in the next 100 years. The only solution is a Nostratic-like model.

Yeah, I've heard a lot of bullcrap, all of which comes from nationalist idiots. Greek nationalists dispute the IndoEuropean language family as well, and they are just ending up ridiculing themselves. Man, stop the rabble and grow up. Uralic, Indo-European and Altaic language families are here to stay. As for Nostratic:

It is not a mainstream theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostrat...ve_linguistics

While the Nostratic hypothesis is not endorsed by the mainstream of comparative linguistics, Nostratic studies by nature of being based on the comparative method remain within the mainstream of contemporary linguistics from a methodological point of view; it is the scope with which the comparative method is applied rather than the methodology itself that raises eyebrows.
Nostraticists tend to refuse to include in their schema language families for which no proto-language has yet been reconstructed. This approach was criticized by Joseph Greenberg on the ground that genetic classification is necessarily prior to linguistic reconstruction^[63] but this criticism has so far had no effect on Nostraticist theory and practice.
Certain critiques have pointed out that the data from individual, established language families that is cited in Nostratic comparisons often involves a high degree of errors; Campbell (1998) demonstrates this for Uralic data. Defenders of the Nostratic theory argue that were this to be true, it would remain that in classifying languages genetically, positives count for vastly more than negatives (Ruhlen 1994). The reason for this is that, above a certain threshold, resemblances in sound/meaning correspondences are highly improbable mathematically.
The technique of comparing grammatical structures (as opposed to words) has suggested to some^[who?] that the Nostratic candidates lack interrelatedness. However, Pedersen's original Nostratic proposal synthesized earlier macrofamilies, some of which, including Indo-Uralic, involved extensive comparison of inflections.^[64] It is true the Russian Nostraticists and Bomhard initially emphasized lexical comparisons. Bomhard recognized the necessity to explore morphological comparisons and has since published extensive work in this area (see especially Bomhard 2008:1.273–386). According to him the breakthrough came with the publication of the first volume of Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic work,^[65] which provided a massive list of possible morphemic correspondences that has proved fruitful to explore.^[66] Other important contributions on Nostratic morphology have been published by John C. Kerns^[67] and Vladimir Dybo.^[68]
Critics argue that were one to collect all the words from the various known Indo-European languages and dialects which have at least one of any 4 meanings, one could easily form a list that would cover any conceivable combination of two consonants and a vowel (of which there are only about 20*20*5=2000). Nostraticists respond that they do not compare isolated lexical items but reconstructed proto-languages. To include a word for a proto-language it must be found in a number of languages and the forms must be relatable by regular sound changes. In addition, many languages have restrictions on root structure, reducing the number of possible root-forms far below its mathematical maximum. These languages include, among others, Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic—all the core languages of the Nostratic hypothesis. To understand how the root structures of one language relate to those of another has long been a focus of Nostratic studies.^[69] For a highly critical assessment of the work of the Moscow School, especially the work of Illich-Svitych, cf. Campbell and Poser 2008:243-264.

It has also been argued that Nostratic comparisons mistake Wanderwörter and cross-borrowings between branches for true cognates.^[70]

They can't compare existing languages, but FICTIONAL reconstructed Proto-languages, and if a proto-language does not exist (how could you create a proto-language for Basque? It is a language isolate!) they just can't fit in the picture!!!

Furthermore, even Nostratic CANNOT wipe out the existing language families:

Please, stop masturbating! Nostratic shall never go as far as you dream of it. The Uralic, IndoEuropean and Altaic language families are here to stay... And the Computers won't crash from the data fed to them, trust me!

To bad that synthetic languages also include Turkic and Amerindian

• 1. Synthetic
•• 1.1. Polysynthetic
•• 1.2. Fusional
•• 1.3. Agglutinative
•• 1.4. Oligosynthetic

Proto-Indo-European (haplogroup R) is is Fusional Synthetic, while Turkic, Aboriginal and Amerindian (haplogroup C) are agglutinative synthetic.

To bad that Na-Dené languages are mostly polysynthetic and less agglutinative.

Some Amerindians have R haplogroup as well. They kept SOME of their original language. The 90% of the C haplogroup still speaks agglutinative, while the 90% of the R haplogroup still speaks fusional. Some languages are shitfing over time due to the influence of their neighbors, like Estonian:

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

A fusional language is a type of synthetic language, distinguished from agglutinative languages by their tendency to overlay many morphemes to denote grammatical, syntactic, or semantic change.

Examples of fusional Indo-European languages are: Sanskrit, Greek (classical and modern), Latvian, Pashto, Russian, German, Icelandic, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, French, Irish, Albanian, Latin, Punjabi, and the Iberian Romance dialect continuum. Another notable group of fusional languages is the Semitic languages group. A high degree of fusion is also found in many Sami languages, such as Skolt Sami.^{[citation needed]} Unusually for a natively North American language, Navajo is sometimes described as fusional due to its complex and inseparable verb morphology.^[1][2]

An illustration of fusionality is the Latin word bonus ("good"). The ending -us denotes masculine gender, nominative case, and singular number. Changing any one of these features requires replacing the suffix -us with a different one. In the form bonum, the ending -um denotes masculine accusative singular, neuter accusative singular, or neuter nominative singular.


History


Fusional languages generally tend to lose their inflection over the centuries—some languages much more quickly than others.^[3] While Proto-Indo-European was fusional, some of its descendants have shifted to a more analytic structure, such as Modern English and Afrikaans, or agglutinative, such as Persian and Armenian. Other descendants are fusional, including Sanskrit, Latin, Ancient Greek, Lithuanian, and Slavic languages.

Some languages shift over time from agglutinative to fusional. 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.

And to bad that Armenian, Bantu, Dravidian, Kartvelian, Berber, Persian languages are agglutinative

Armenian is fusional (see above)
Bantu is not related to either European or Asian Haplogroups or languages. It is IRRELEVANT to the subject.
Dravidian is agglutinative, but not directly related to the Uralic or Altaic language families. It might be distantly related though. Dravidian genetics have nothing to do with either Turkic or IndoEuropeans, but the possibility of an IndoEuropean invasion splitting the Uralic and Altaic people from the Dravidians cannot be ruled out.
Kartvelian is in the Caucasus which is a small kaleidoscope of dozens of different languages and linguistic families. You can't use Caucasian languages for any conclusion, because they are so close and yet so different from each other. Kartvelian might be agglutinative because of a relation with older farmting languages of Mesopotamia (Sumerian) or because of later influences by the Altaic languages, or because it is a link between Uralic/Altaic and Sumerian, or for entirely different reasons which elude us so far.
Berber is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, no direct relation to Uralic, Altaic or IndoEuropean genetics or languages. Possible distant relation with Basque or perhaps even Sumerian though.
Persian is THE ONLY IRANIAN LANGUAGE which is agglutinative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language

Some assert that Persian language is the only Iranian language which is agglutinative^{[3][4][5][6][7]}

Which means that Persian probably was fusional like the other Iranian (and by extent, Indo-European) languages, and at some point, probably because of the influence of Sumerian and other old Mesopotamian agglutinative languages, turned agglutinative, just as Estonian which borders Indo-European languages today shifts from agglutinative to fusional!

Nothing unusual really! Languages change all of the time...

[Proto-Shaman]

You are trying the same shit twice... You never learn!

So, please tell me what do dogs have in common with a sun language?

If that was true then scholars of Altaic would have interpreted Herodotus' Scythian words as Altaic words, which is NOT THE CASE.

Which was the case. And which is still the case. Aaah Petros, you don't even know the ABC of Scythology, be happy I am still answering to your ignorance.

Perhaps you should grow a brain and try to reason why the surviving Scythian words don't fit into any modern Altaic language...

Almost all of them do.

DNA doesn't lie, but you are trying to prove that an x people did never change their language over the millenia, which is a false assumption.

You are claiming mass conversion. Thats hypocritical eurocentrism.

You quote Alinei, who nobody takes seriously, and you confuse a few things: the new IndoEuropean theory by Gimbutas is divorced from the development of agriculture, and everybody know it. In fact, Alineis' theory is basically rubbish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoli...tinuity_Theory

Alinei is no better goon than Klyosov, and nobody takes any of them seriously!

Wrong, I just cited European facts which are published by the PCT workgroup. Swallow please.

The question is not what it is today, but what it was several thousands of years ago. We are looking for the sources of languages, not the current speakers of any language.

A mass conversion is a hypocritical eurocentric scenario. R is the bulk of Turkics. Q is substratum in Turkics. N is parental to Turkics. C is also substratum in Turkics.

The question is not what it is today, but what it was several thousands of years ago. We are looking for the sources of languages, not the current speakers of any language.

Indo-Europeans did not travelled to America

If they are not predominantly R, then why are they Indo-European? Can you explain that? This is exactly where your theory fails: There are people today who speak a language that was not spoken thousand of years ago by their ancestors in their location, and this applies equally to South Balkaners (E3b) North Balkaners (I2a) South Italians and Turks (J2) and so on. Why shouldn't the same apply to the Turkic people of Central Asia? Are they immune to invasions and changes of language???

PETROS !!! MULTIPLE HAPLOGROUP ORIGINS !!!! haplogroups do not correlate with languages !!!

R is synthetic, and Basque R would still be a synthetic language.

Basque = NON-Indo-European.

All of the C haplogroup speakers have originated as speakers of an agglutinative language, the split into Altaic/Amerindian/Aboriginal took place later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflect...ious_languages

"... a stage which language must necessarily pass through before reaching the higher inflectional or Aryan stage, for, as Professor Müller observes, 'we cannot resist the conclusion that what is now inflectional was formerly agglutinative'." (Hodder M. Westropp, Handbook of Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Archeology, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, p.483)

Irrelevant. People can change their language at any time.

Why are you denying a genetic fact that Amerindian R is ancient and not from colonial times? I mean do you have brain cells?

Genetics gives us a more complex image of the world. It doesn't say "fuck off" to linguistics. It is impossible to correlate modern haplogroups with modern languages (this is where you are screwing it) but we can try to detect which haplogroup gave rise to which language family in the past (which is what I am doing!)

Your hypocritical viewpoint is not in the scientific position to claim "Mal'ta boy".

No time machine, even if what you say is correct, people can be conquered and change their language at any time. You can't prove that Turkish was spoken anywhere more than 13 centuries ago. What makes you believe that the people speaking Turkish today must have always speaking Turkish?

Swallow the map and be quite:

If science is silent, then how do you prove a non-Turkification, especially in light of the fact that non-Turkic people as far as in modern Turkey were Turkified during the last 10 centuries? How can you prove that R1b was Turkish 10.000 years ago when you cannot prove that it was Turkish 1.000 years ago? Do you know what happened during the last 10.000 years?

I don't have to disprove a non-Turkification, since a Turkification theory doesn't even exist.

Do you know what happened during the last 10.000 years?

Yes, I know even what happened in the last 16.000 years. Should I show you what happened?

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a language family based upon genetics alone? You need to study linguistics in order to prove language theories? What you suggest is outrightly INSANE!

Keep calm, Altaic is just a hypothesis.

Basque is not related to any language in Europe today! It could be a remnant of the haplogroup I, G, J, E or even Q, all of those haplogroups scoring 0.5 or more, since the haplogroup N scores 0.5 in Hungary, and Hungary is an Uralic language, and all of the Uralic speakers outside Hungary have even more significant traces of N.

1. Basque = NON-Indo-European

2. Recent Developments in Uralistics:

“It is obvious that not only the Ugric taxon should be reconsidered. It looks that recent developments in Uralistics are creating a sort of a crisis of a scientific paradigm in the field of Uralistics. One can notice the main features of this crisis, which were or are the same as in the other Sciences or Humanities. These features are well described by T. S. Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as the crisis of the old scientific paradigm and the creation of the new scientific theories (Kun, 1977: 96 - 109). Kuhn is quite correct to stress that the old scientific paradigm never goes away peacefully. Usually, the scholars strongly and negatively react to new theories and to those scholars who introduce new theories. Kuhn points out that what the scholars never do is to rush to the support of the new theory (Kun, 1977: 110 - 119). We can see the similar negative reaction of the majority of the specialists in Uralistics to the new theories of Ago Kuennap, Angela Marcantonio, Wiik Kalevi and others, who reject the old scientific paradigm in Uralistics. … It is easy to explain psychologically why the old scientific paradigms are more stable and why many scholars would rather cling to false (but old) paradigm than switch over to the true (but new and unknown) one. It is quite cosy to remain in the embrace of the old and known paradigm. One can always close his or her eyes to its inconsistencies and drawbacks. Many Uralic linguists got used to the old classification, which they first studied as students. They do not want to think about it twice, since they usually work on some other linguistic problems which do not concern the classification of languages. Usually, many linguists do not want to disturb "sleeping dogs". They do not believe that this or that linguistic classification must be checked again and again. Fortunately, in Uralistics there are some other linguists who think that with growing linguistic knowledge the old linguistic classifications should be verified. That is, every new linguistic fact should be used to verify the old linguistic classifications. If more and more new linguistic facts are discovered that contradict the old classification, it has to be reconsidered on the basis of the new level of linguistic knowledge. The linguists with modern linguistic thinking argue that the old linguistics classifications must be verified and checked again and again, and reconsidered if necessary, again and again. However, in Uralistics, as well as in linguistics in general, old classifications are not reconsidered after an abundance of new linguistic facts has been received. One must bear in mind a simple idea: what was good and logical several centuries ago, i.e., at the old level of development of linguistics, may be neither good nor logical at a more advanced development of linguistics, of course, if we want to call this "science". Any linguist must understand the difference between a linguistic fact, which may remain true, though discovered several centuries ago, and a linguistic theory, which can be altered or rejected when abundant new linguistic facts are discovered.”

http://english.fullerton.edu/publica...Tamb-Ugric.pdf

Korean and Japanese are part of Altaic. If you believe that Altaic doesn't exist, that is your problem. How could Korean and Japanese be part of an inexistent linguistic family?

Altaic is just a hypothesis without acceptance. Ainu is also included. Whereas IE is a hypothesis with a wide acceptance.

Yes, because Japanese and Korean are also part of the group now!

Japanese AND Korean are part of the Altaic language family today. Get used to it!

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

Micro-Altaic is a subset of Macro-Altaic today. Do you know set theory?

A is Micro-Altaic, and B is Macro-Altaic:

No Petros, please learn English! Everybody will give you the same answer: Altaic is not an accepted language family.

It's not a proof. Older lineages are not less susceptible to subjugation and change of language than newer lineages. Stop having that weird fetish with older lineages!
If an older lineage of Amerindians were conquered by the Yankees and forced to speak English, while a newer lineage of Amerindians fled and manage to maintain its' language, what would that prove?Altaic exists, either you like it or not. It is very fragmented because it has few samples which are as much widespread as IndoEuropean in the old world - but IndoEuropean has by far more languages, by far more written accounts of its' existence and more evidence to draw upon in general. Whether R1b is 18,500 old Eurasian haplogroup or 50,000 old Eurasian haplogroup is irrelevant. What is relevant is that R gave rise to synthetic langauges, while C gave rise to agglutinative languages - including the Americas and Australia!

You are obsessed, nothing else Petros, you have no sense for reality but live in a IE fantasy world.

Turks exist too, just as the Altaic language exists. Don't destroy everything.

Prove

C gave rise to the most of the agglutinative languages that still exist today.

1. Aboriginal Australian languages are not agglutinative.
2. Examples of agglutinative languages include:

• Algonquian languages, namely Cree and Blackfoot
• Japanese language
• Koreanic languages
• Mongolic languages
• Tungusic languages
• Turkic languages
• Armenian language
• Athabaskan languages
• Austronesian languages[citation needed]
• Bantu languages (see Ganda)
• Dravidian languages, most prominent of which are Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Tulu
• Eskimo–Aleut languages, namely Aleut, Inuktitut, and Yupik
• Igboid languages
• Kartvelian languages
• some Mesoamerican and native North American languages including Nahuatl, Huastec, and Salish
• Muskogean languages
• Northeast and Northwest Caucasian languages
• Berber languages
• Some assert that Persian language is the only Iranian language which is agglutinative[3][4][5][6][7]
• many Uralic languages, namely Hungarian, Finnish and Sami languages
• Siouan languages, namely Lakota and Yuchi
• many Tibeto-Burman languages
• Quechua languages and Aymara
• Vasconic languages namely Basque, and the extinct Aquitanian

Many languages spoken by Ancient Near East peoples were agglutinative:

• Gutian
• Elamite
• Hattic
• Hurrian
• Kassite
• Lullubi
• Sumerian
• Urartian

Agglutination is a typological feature and does not imply a linguistic relation, but there are some families of agglutinative languages. For example, the Proto-Uralic language, the ancestor of Uralic languages, was agglutinative, and most descended languages inherit this feature. But since agglutination can arise in languages that previously had a non-agglutinative typology and it can be lost in languages that previously were agglutinative, agglutination as a typological trait cannot be used as evidence of genetic relationship to other agglutinative languages. The uncertain theory about Ural-Altaic proffers that there is a genetic relationship with this proto-language. As seen at Finnish and as seen at Mongolian and Turkish.[8] And they have historical borders with Sumerian too.[9]
___________

Where is haplogroup C in all of these folks unifying them?

You can masturbate all you like, but Sumerian is basically related to Dravidian, not to and Uralic or Altaic languages. It is also agglutinative though! The word "Ur" (town, city, settlement) still exists in most dravidian languages! Hungarian has no relation with the Neolithic farmers for sure, neither genetic not linguistic! All of the Uralic languages are spoken near the North pole, no other language is centered further from a potential cradle of agriculture than the Uralic languages!!!

That's why Dravidians (HAPLOGROUP R2!!!) once were grouped within Turanian languages together with Uralic, Altaic, many Siberian languages and many more!

This link is in the bottom of the wikipedia page about the Uralic languages, under the title "Rebel Uralists", and lists a mere 4 scientists who dispute the Uralic language family. The beginning of the page leaves no question though:

The Uralic languages /jʊˈrælɨk/ (sometimes called Uralian /jʊˈreɪliən/ languages) constitute a language family of some 38[2] languages spoken by approximately 25 million people. The Uralic languages with the most native speakers are Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian, which are official languages of Hungary, Finland, and Estonia, respectively, and of the European Union. Other Uralic languages with significant numbers of speakers are Erzya, Moksha, Mari, Udmurt, and Komi, which are officially recognized languages in various regions of Russia.
The name "Uralic" derives from the fact that areas where the languages are spoken spread on both sides of the Ural Mountains. Also, the original homeland (Urheimat) is commonly hypothesized to lie in the vicinity of the Urals.
Finno-Ugric is sometimes used as a synonym for Uralic, though Finno-Ugric is widely understood to exclude the Samoyedic languages.[3]

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

In fact there are more question marks about the Altaic langauges than the Uralic languages.

Investigation revealed that Uralic language taxon (MV= 28.31%, MTMB= 0.57) is more disperced than the Samoyedic (MV= 18.29%, MTMB= 0.16) or Finno-Ugric (MV= 24.14%, MTMB= 0.47) family. It shows that Uralic taxon is not natural, but rather artificial, i.e. created by linguists.

The Uralic language family is accepted by the vast majority of scholars, whether you like it or not!

More recently, the conventional framework of Uralic studies has been challenged from two points of view. On the one hand, the so-called Roots Group, led by Kalevi Wiik (e.g. 2004) and anticipated by János Pusztay (1996), has proposed that the Uralic comparative corpus, or at least a considerable part of it, should be explained as the result of areal convergence, rather than genetic divergence. If this were the case, there would have been no single coherent Proto-Uralic language, but, rather, two or more regional proto languages and centres of expansion. In this context, Proto-Uralic has also been described as having been formed as a regional lingua franca (for a critical review of the issue, cf., e.g., Jaakko Häkkinen 2006). On the other hand, it has been claimed, notably by Angela Marcantonio (2002), that the entire Uralic comparative corpus is simply not valid and thus requires neither a divergence nor a convergence explanation. According to this view, the conventional Uralic comparisons and reconstructions are statistically unlikely to be true. This would be especially so since the comparative corpus shared by Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic is very small, comprising hardly more than 200 lexical items.



In fact, Ago Kuennap and Angela Marcantonio believe that it is high time to reconsider some of the language families. They consider it quite wrong to call the Uralic set of languages "a family", since their genetic relationship has not been properly proved (Marcantonio, 2002).

Even a 5 year old kid can see the relation between the haplogroup N and the Uralic languages. Take a look morons:

Cool story:



Yakut Saka Turks and Chukchis don't speak Uralic.

Furthermore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns#T...f_ethnic_Finns

bla...bla...bla...

In other words, the theories of Wiik and Kunnap are nationalistic and not part of mainstream academia...

1. Nationalism is part of Indo-Germanism. Because the Finno-Ugric hypothesis is a function of Indo-Germanism, this theory collapsed along with the collapse of Indo-Germanism.
2. Do you believe mainstream 9/11 report?

Yeah, I've heard a lot of bullcrap, all of which comes from nationalist idiots. Greek nationalists dispute the IndoEuropean language family as well, and they are just ending up ridiculing themselves. Man, stop the rabble and grow up. Uralic, Indo-European and Altaic language families are here to stay. As for Nostratic:

Your personal opinion is not of interest.

They can't compare existing languages, but FICTIONAL reconstructed Proto-languages, and if a proto-language does not exist (how could you create a proto-language for Basque? It is a language isolate!) they just can't fit in the picture!!!

Furthermore, even Nostratic CANNOT wipe out the existing language families:

Please, stop masturbating! Nostratic shall never go as far as you dream of it. The Uralic, IndoEuropean and Altaic language families are here to stay... And the Computers won't crash from the data fed to them, trust me!

Trust me, old thinkers are out, new thinkers are in. Take a look at Mandelbrot, previously called dreamer, now common mathematics.

Proto-Indo-European (haplogroup R) is is Fusional Synthetic, while Turkic, Aboriginal and Amerindian (haplogroup C) are agglutinative synthetic.

1. No paper exists claiming haplogroup R as IE.
2. Dravidians and Turkics have agglutinative languages.
3. Aboriginal Australians are not even related.
4. Amerindian is R + C

Armenian is fusional (see above)

No Petros, Armenian is agglutinative (see your own quotation )

It is IRRELEVANT to the subject.

Like most of your masturbation.

Bantu is not related to either European or Asian Haplogroups or languages.

Dravidian is agglutinative, but not directly related to the Uralic or Altaic language families. It might be distantly related though. Dravidian genetics have nothing to do with either Turkic or IndoEuropeans,

Kartvelian is in the Caucasus which is a small kaleidoscope of dozens of different languages and linguistic families. You can't use Caucasian languages for any conclusion, because they are so close and yet so different from each other. Kartvelian might be agglutinative because of a relation with older farmting languages of Mesopotamia (Sumerian) or because of later influences by the Altaic languages, or because it is a link between Uralic/Altaic and Sumerian, or for entirely different reasons which elude us so far.

Berber is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, no direct relation to Uralic, Altaic or IndoEuropean genetics or languages. Possible distant relation with Basque or perhaps even Sumerian though.
Persian is THE ONLY IRANIAN LANGUAGE which is agglutinative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language

Some assert that Persian language is the only Iranian language which is agglutinative[3][4][5][6][7]


Which means that Persian probably was fusional like the other Iranian (and by extent, Indo-European) languages, and at some point, probably because of the influence of Sumerian and other old Mesopotamian agglutinative languages, turned agglutinative, just as Estonian which borders Indo-European languages today shifts from agglutinative to fusional!

Nothing unusual really! Languages change all of the time...

Still waiting for haplogroup C !!

[Kamal900]

-----

Can i ask you something real quick; why are you so obsessed in taking iranic culture and heritage away from the iranian peoples in central, south and west asia? Iranians played a HUGE role in shaping your people's culture and etc, and Turkic peoples were greatly influenced by the iranian peoples that they once lived close to like the Scythians, Parthians, Persians and etc. Hell, even the Mughuls who are descended from the mongols are a persianite turkic people who are very persianized in their culture, language and etc. Turanism, like Afrocentrism and other ethnocentric ideologies, is nothing but a racist sham built on the idea of Turanic supremacism. If you want to be a proud turk then i have no objections, but please, dont steal the civilizations and heritages from other peoples.

[Proto-Shaman]

---------

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Kamal900]

Sorry, I don't buy it.

What do you mean by that statement even, do you think its some kind of trick or something? As i said, leave the iranic and other people's cultures and heritages alone, and just take pride in your own heritage and accomplishments more.

[Pahli]

Sorry, I don't buy it.

We achieved a lot more than warware and killing like you did. And now you're stealing history haha. Its pretty well documented who is who, but I guess you're fed up with your pro-mongolism / pro-turkism.

Turks all originated from West Mongolia and Western China, they had nothing to do with Central Asia untill around 2200 years ago.