Why are "Baltic" Lithuanians(and Latvians) so heavily FinN1C?

[Wyn]

Ah, the petty squabbles of Finnics, Balts, and other non-EuR1bns.

[Don Brick]

Ah, the petty squabbles of Finnics, Balts, and other non-EuR1bns.

Yeah, but what about us kI1ngs? Back in the day the original R1b (peasant) Britons were dominated hard by the I1 carrying invading Germanic aristocracy if I´m not completely mistaken. The same is probably true even today.

j/k

[Jaska]

The links you provide are your theories. And you have some supporters. Wouldn't it be nice of you to mention this?

There are also other theories, and your theories (although strong in many ways) have been questioned.

They are peer-reviewed articles, so it does not matter that I actually wrote some of them. And all who have considered the subject since, agree. Those articles which don't agree, are older - you cannot rely on them, because during their writing the new view was not yet presented. Nobody have questioned these new theories on any argumental ground since they were published, unless you have some secret knowledge?

Of course some people (like Jäärapää) may be stuck in the old views, but as in science only arguments count, such opinions have no value. Stubbornity is not a scientific argument.

There were two waves of N1c that spread to the Baltic area and they both spread there from an area where no Uralic was spoken, so the haplotype may not be connected with the spread of Uralic languages. The first wave some 6-7000 years ago, was to modern day (roughly) Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine and the second approx 4000 years ago to northwestern Russia.
As far as I know, tha majority of N1c in Estonia and western Finland spread north from the first wave. From the second wave the younger N1c was brought to eastern Finland. The younger spread may have brought with it Uralic languages to the region.

Is this correct?

So far it's hard to tell for sure.
With the 67-marker haplotree it looks like all the "northern N1c" (in Karelia, Finland and Scandinavia) is relatively young and descended from some wide-spread branch. There are of course some older groups in the north, too, but the great majority of Finns belong to the top branches 7, 8 and 9:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/SukupuuN1c.pdf

[Äike]

These new results:
http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/viritt...tut/2006_2.pdf
http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf

In brief: Proto-Uralic started to expand about 2000 BC from the Volga-Kama area. So the Uralic languages cannot predate the Indo-European languages here near the Baltic Sea. You see, the Indo-European dating has not changed: it is still connected to the Corded Ware Culture, reaching the Baltic Sea region about 3200 BC.

And here is something in English to tell you what is wrong with the continuity argument you believe in:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
More in Finnish:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus1.pdf

Many linguists have already agreed with these new results. During the present decade you will see these views also in English and in popular books, and at 2020's they are in the school books. I have told this to you earlier in ForumBiodiversity, but you just refuse to understand it.


1. Some ancestors of Estonians have of course lived in Estonia "forever". But some of the ancestors are later newcomers.

2. You cannot claim that the Estonian language is inherited from the first inhabitants. Firstly, it is methodologically invalid (see the third link above), and secondly, it is against the linguistic results (see the first and second link above).

I wasn't talking about Kalevi Wiik's theory of the Uralic people being the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Northern-Europe.

I was talking about the main theory, that's written in school books and history books.

The Uralic people arrived to Northern-Europe in 4200BC, 1000 years before the Indo-Europeans. That's the main theory, Kalevi Wiik's theory is considerably different.

3. Proto-Germanic loanwords are not older than 500 BC, but there are Palaeo- and Pre-Germanic loanwords older than that. There is no need to consider them older than, say, 1500 BC, when the Uralic (Pre-Finnic) language had already reached the Baltic Sea.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

...Estonia was part of the Nordic bronze age and the Germanic loanwords started coming into our language since 2000BC. A lot of them are related to trade.

Some examples:

Proto-Germanic and Germanic loans 2000 BC – 13th century: agan, ader 'plough', humal, kana 'hen', kaer 'oats', rukis 'rye', lammas 'sheep', leib 'bread', põld 'field'; aer 'oar', mõrd 'fish trap', laev 'ship', noot 'seine, sweep net', puri 'sail'; kuld 'gold', raud 'iron', tina 'tin'; sukk 'stocking', katel 'kettle', küünal 'candle', taigen 'dough'; kuningas 'king', laen 'loan', luna 'ransom, bail', raha 'money', rikas 'rich', vald 'parish, community'; kalju 'rock', kallas 'shore', rand 'coast'; armas 'dear', taud 'disease', kaunis 'beautiful', ja 'and'

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

[Jaska]

I wasn't talking about Kalevi Wiik's theory of the Uralic people being the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Northern-Europe.

I was talking about the main theory, that's written in school books and history books.

The Uralic people arrived to Northern-Europe in 4200BC, 1000 years before the Indo-Europeans. That's the main theory, Kalevi Wiik's theory is considerably different.

You have earlier supported Wiik's views, too.
Yes, this "Uralic Combed Ware Culture" is the school-book theory. But as I said, scientists are in growing numbers turning to the new theory - but of course it takes some time before you can find it in the school books. Why don't you read scientific articles, instead?

It happens to be, that the view of the scientists end up into the school books, not vice versa.

...Estonia was part of the Nordic bronze age and the Germanic loanwords started coming into our language since 2000BC. A lot of them are related to trade.

You are wrong, the loanwords did not start to come into your language - they started to come in Early Proto-Finnic. They were also adopted in Middle Proto-Finnic and Late Proto-Finnic. I doubt there are any other Germanic loanwords than Swedish loanwords adopted directly to Estonian. Estonian - like all the other Finnic languages - has separated so recently.

I repeat: there was no Estonian language 2000 BC.
There was no Estonian language even 0 AD.

[Äike]

You have earlier supported Wiik's views, too.
Yes, this "Uralic Combed Ware Culture" is the school-book theory. But as I said, scientists are in growing numbers turning to the new theory - but of course it takes some time before you can find it in the school books. Why don't you read scientific articles, instead?

It happens to be, that the view of the scientists end up into the school books, not vice versa.


You are wrong, the loanwords did not start to come into your language - they started to come in Early Proto-Finnic. They were also adopted in Middle Proto-Finnic and Late Proto-Finnic. I doubt there are any other Germanic loanwords than Swedish loanwords adopted directly to Estonian. Estonian - like all the other Finnic languages - has separated so recently.

The Swedish language, Old Norse, nor Proto-Norse yet existed, when the first (Proto-Germanic) loanwords started coming into the Estonian language.

I repeat: there was no Estonian language 2000 BC.
There was no Estonian language even 0 AD.

At 2000 BC, the Finnic languages were certainly more similar than they are now, in the 13th century, Estonian was closer to Finnish than it is now. But we cannot talk about the Finnic people speaking an identical language.

Anyone who says that there was no Estonian language at 0 AD, is an extremist and is more extreme than people like Kalevi Wiik.

[Jaska]

The Swedish language, Old Norse, nor Proto-Norse yet existed, when the first (Proto-Germanic) loanwords started coming into the Estonian language.

Darling, can't you understand English? The first Germanic loanwords did not come into Estonian, they came into Early Proto-Finnic. Estonian was a separate language only well after the year 1 AD. Different Finnic languages are only little older than different Scandinavian languages.

What is it here that you don't understand ?

At 2000 BC, the Finnic languages were certainly more similar than they are now, in the 13th century, Estonian was closer to Finnish than it is now. But we cannot talk about the Finnic people speaking an identical language.

Anyone who says that there was no Estonian language at 0 AD, is an extremist and is more extreme than people like Kalevi Wiik.

And your view is, again, based on the schoolbooks? up
My view is based on the scientific studies. I have given links to you earlier, but you rather keep your erroneous beliefs.

"Triangulation" between Germanic, Finnic and Saamic shows us that Late Proto-Finnic was contemporaneous with Saamic protodialects and Early Proto-Norse, and they all were spoken ca. at the Younger Roman Iron Age (some centuries after 0 AD). See table in page 6:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

I know well that you cannot understand any scientific argumentation contradicting your religious beliefs, but I write for those who can.

[Äike]

Darling, can't you understand English? The first Germanic loanwords did not come into Estonian, they came into Early Proto-Finnic. Estonian was a separate language only well after the year 1 AD. Different Finnic languages are only little older than different Scandinavian languages.

If the Finnic languages would be as old as the Scandinavian languages, then they should be mutually intelligible. Many Slavic languages and also the Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible, because of their young age. Saying that Finnic languages are just as young, just doesn't add up.

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

And your view is, again, based on the schoolbooks? up
My view is based on the scientific studies. I have given links to you earlier, but you rather keep your erroneous beliefs.

"Triangulation" between Germanic, Finnic and Saamic shows us that Late Proto-Finnic was contemporaneous with Saamic protodialects and Early Proto-Norse, and they all were spoken ca. at the Younger Roman Iron Age (some centuries after 0 AD). See table in page 6:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

I know well that you cannot understand any scientific argumentation contradicting your religious beliefs, but I write for those who can.

My views are based on common sense and a wide array of books(not school books).

[Motörhead Remember Me]

[QUOTE=Jaska;368854]

They are peer-reviewed articles, so it does not matter that I actually wrote some of them. And all who have considered the subject since, agree. Those articles which don't agree, are older - you cannot rely on them, because during their writing the new view was not yet presented. Nobody have questioned these new theories on any argumental ground since they were published, unless you have some secret knowledge?

No, I don't have any secret knowledge. I refer to the debates betweeen you and others on i.e. tiede.fi (Note: I'm not arguing against your theories but it has caught my eye that you almost always refer to yourself) Maybe there are new theories in the making as science is not static? Waht we accept today may be debatable tomorrow.

So far it's hard to tell for sure.
With the 67-marker haplotree it looks like all the "northern N1c" (in Karelia, Finland and Scandinavia) is relatively young and descended from some wide-spread branch. There are of course some older groups in the north, too, but the great majority of Finns belong to the top branches 7, 8 and 9:

Sure, one man (approx 1800-1900 years ago) have had a lot of descendants. The Djingis Khan effect. We do not know much more than that.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

If the Finnic languages would be as old as the Scandinavian languages, then they should be mutually intelligible. Many Slavic languages and also the Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible, because of their young age. Saying that Finnic languages are just as young, just doesn't add up.

This is actually very true.

The Scandinavian languages i.e. are mutually intelligble because the have rather recently spread from a small core area. But Finnic languages have been separated from each other for a longer period of time taking on greater differencies. They cannot have separated later than all Germanic languages!

There's a nice paper on this by a Swedish linguist. I'll find that soon.