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

**~~Pennywise~~** · 01-19-2015, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan

Maybe bad example. This was actually the reconstruction of Kennewick man, a standard native American by DNA, but looks very Eurasian.

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?

you're giving too much credits to these retards. let them alone.

**Demhat** · 01-19-2015, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Ölüezgi

you're giving too much credits to these retards. let them alone.

Look who arrived. My "neutral " (lol) Balkan dönme. Butthurt is it part of your hobby to skip throw topics and thumb down people?

**Proto-Shaman** · 01-19-2015, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ölüezgi

you're giving too much credits to these retards. let them alone.

Never mind, but I like to exchange our point of view. Only by this way we can understand each other better.

**~~Pennywise~~** · 01-19-2015, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan

Never mind, but I like to exchange our point of view. Only by this way we can understand each other better.

well then, good luck with understanding schizophrenic trolls.

**Proto-Shaman** · 01-19-2015, 11:45 PM

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.

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 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.

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.

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

**Proto-Shaman** · 01-21-2015, 02:25 PM

The common 1st person pronoun among Uralics and Altaics btw:

**Proto-Shaman** · 01-23-2015, 08:36 PM

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.

**Proto-Shaman** · 03-20-2015, 06:14 PM

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.