Page 103 of 129 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1288

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #1021
    Registered Users
    Posts
    957
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    It may well be that kra001 spoke Pre Proto Uralic or it may be that his fellow N's became language swithchers in greater Ural area, by assuming the language of the locals. Women can be very decisive, if they want to.
    Well you got Basques R1b, so that paralel is working for you.

    But - we know for sure that later assimilation of Balto-Slavs by Uralics was sex biased and mostly it was N guys spreading their language to (say) Balto-Slavic babes. So, then you would need to introduce some sort of cultural change in Uralics that first N guys got language from Volga babes and then they spread language of their first wives to their future wives. While possible, I find it unlikely

  2. #1022
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Well you got Basques R1b, so that paralel is working for you.

    But - we know for sure that later assimilation of Balto-Slavs by Uralics was sex biased and mostly it was N guys spreading their language to (say) Balto-Slavic babes. So, then you would need to introduce some sort of cultural change in Uralics that first N guys got language from Volga babes and then they spread language of their first wives to their future wives. While possible, I find it unlikely
    If it's possible, it may have happened. Take Normans, for example. They did not speak French first and yet they spoke it in England, if I'm right.

  3. #1023
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    This paper went to town with the correlation analyses. The authors tested all sorts of correlations between Y-DNA, autosomal components and languages.

    https://genomebiology.biomedcentral....059-018-1522-1

    But this paper, with its casual observations, is much better IMO, simply because it uses ancient DNA, archeology and linguistics to prove its point.

    https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(19)30424-5

    In any case, there's now practically an academic consensus that the expansions of N-L1026, Nganasan-related ancestry and Uralic languages are linked, if not statistically correlated.

    So Jaska doesn't represent the mainstream here.
    A guess from the geneticians, that's what this is about.
    For example, they don't consider thoroughly any linguistic results about the spread of the Finnic languages:
    "This ancestry reached the coasts of the Baltic Sea no later than the mid-first millennium BC; i.e., in the same time window as the diversification of west Uralic (Finnic) languages."

    Compare the new multidisciplinary synthesis by Valter Lang: according to him (finding archaeological matches for the up-to-date linguistic results), Pre-Proto-Finnic arrived to Baltia around 1000 BC via Daugava route.

    According to Saag et al. 2019, the Nganasan ancestry arrived in the North Estonia and Ingria around 500 BC from the east.

    = There is no match.
    So how could we connect the Siberian ancestry to Lang's model?


    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    I think the issues that Jaska has raised here aren't valid, and the reason he's raised them is because he's out of touch with the latest developments in this area. That is, he's wrong for the wrong reasons, not the right reasons.
    I'm not wrong: it is a scientific fact, that nobody can trace language from DNA.
    I'm not out of touch, either: I just know better, what can and what cannot be seen from the DNA.
    A free hint for you: language cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    Let's be honest, no one in this thread is advocating anything surprising that hasn't already been suggested in peer-reviewed literature, except of course Jaska.
    Wrong: in genetic studies possible connections or correlations are always stated vaguely and with uncertainty. In this forum they get thoroughly black-and-whitezided and suddenly become "facts".

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    But I've got a hunch (actually, it's more than a hunch) that the N-L1026/kra001 = Proto-Uralic theory that I've been promoting in my world is heading for a major paper in a big journal, so let's wait and see.
    Indeed we will.

  4. #1024
    Registered Users
    Posts
    513
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    If it's possible, it may have happened. Take Normans, for example. They did not speak French first and yet they spoke it in England, if I'm right.
    Not really a comparable scenario. Normandy is far larger than the actual amount of Norse settlements in France, and the ones even with Norse descent would've been so intermixed.

    We are also talking about medieval population dynamics versus those of of the bronze age.

  5. #1025
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    This "Khanty ancestry" is actually a combination of approx 50% Nganasan-like ancestry, quite a bit of Steppe MLBA/Europe_LNBA type ancestry, and some ANE-rich ancestry, precisely the combination we've been talking about as characterising either late Proto-Uralic speakers or early post-Proto-Uralic speakers. You can see this when the ADMIXTURE is run at lower K (which is a source of subjectivity and non-interpretability as you very well know). That nganasans are recently uralicised and in fact carry little early Uralic ancestry is something covered earlier in this thread, as you know as well. In the formal statistics, much more interpretable results regarding the place of the Ngansan component of this "Khanty ancestry" is presented.
    Yes, different analyses with the same method produce different results.
    And different analyses with different methods also produce different results.

    That is why we must be extra careful and avoid any black-and-white views, taking interpretations of DNA as solid facts.

  6. #1026
    Registered Users
    Posts
    957
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    If it's possible, it may have happened. Take Normans, for example. They did not speak French first and yet they spoke it in England, if I'm right.
    They switched to English in the end, so nah They followed their pattern of taking the language of wives/locals

  7. #1027
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    But the correlation between N-L1026, Nganasan-related ancestry and Uralic languages isn't just found in Northeastern Europe. It's also found in Siberia and in ancient DNA from the Carpathian Basin (Hungarian conquerors).
    Pannonian Avars also carry paternal N but if I recall it right you are somewhat hesitant to say that they spoke Uralic. And yes, they may indeed have spoken something like Tungusic or even both, difficult to say. However, I think Laszlo has a point in saying that for some reason Tungusic looking toponymes seem to be missing in Hungary EDIT. Now there, if you're able to connect kra001 to Pannonian Avars, you have a linguistic point of view available too. I do admit that Double Conquest is not a mainstream theory, but as long as the Hungarian toponymes look mostly Uralic, it seems to be workable, at least. Pannonian Avars did not come from Ural area, so they did not assume their language there.
    Last edited by Huck Finn; 04-20-2021 at 07:31 AM. Reason: typo

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Huck Finn For This Useful Post:

     Kanenas (04-20-2021)

  9. #1028
    Registered Users
    Posts
    513
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    Pannonian Avars also carry paternal N but if I recall it right you are somewhat hesitant to say that they spoke Uralic. And yes, they may indeed have spoken something like Tungusic or even both, difficult to say. However, I think Laszlo has a point in saying that for some reason Tungusic looking toponymes seem to be missing in Hungary, for some reason. Now there, if you're able to connect kra001 to Pannonian Avars, you have a linguistic point of view available too. I do admit that Double Conquest is not a mainstream theory, but as long as the Hungarian toponymes look mostly Uralic, it seems to be workable, at least. Pannonian Avars did not come from Ural area, so they did not assume their language there.
    Werent the Avar N lineages mostly belonging to a cluster not strongly associated with Uralic speakers to begin with?

    All the 5 other Avar samples belonged to N1a1a1a1a3-B197, which is most prevalent in Chukchi, Buryats, Eskimos, Koryaks and appears among Tuvans and Mongols with lower frequency.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
    Last edited by CopperAxe; 04-20-2021 at 07:27 AM.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Generalissimo (04-20-2021),  Michał (04-20-2021)

  11. #1029
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    No you're wrong. The Anatolian hypothesis came up in a period when the Indo-European question had already moved on from being just a linguistic matter. In fact it was a rebuttal of the Kurgan hypothesis by Marija Gimbutas who combined archeology with philology and linguistics to make her case.

    The message here is not that it is unscientific to trace languages via archaeology. The Kurgan hypothesis did just that. The message is that it is bad practise to ignore the reuslts and common opinions from other fields of study and put all your eggs in one basket.

    You're putting all your eggs in the basket that are your own linguistic findings. That means you're Renfrew, not Gimbutas.
    You still haven't understood it. I try to be as explicit as I can:

    1. There is the scientific method: take the linguistic results, and then try to find archaeological matches for them. Here we have: Gimbutas, Mallory, Anthony etc.

    2. Then there is the unscientific method: ignore the linguistic results, and just arbitrarily decide that some archaeological phenomenon is connected to certain language. Here we have: Renfrew, Alinei, Wiik etc.

    Do you now understand, what this all is about?
    Please feel free to ask, if you still didn't get it.

    Now, exactly the same groups exist concerning aDNA: some people do it scientifically, some do it unscientifically, ignoring the linguistic results and claiming to see language from DNA.
    Last edited by Jaska; 04-20-2021 at 07:26 AM.

  12. #1030
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Not really a comparable scenario. Normandy is far larger than the actual amount of Norse settlements in France, and the ones even with Norse descent would've been so intermixed.

    We are also talking about medieval population dynamics versus those of of the bronze age.
    I'm so happy we have connoisseurs like you here which are able to define the finesses of differents time periods in such a delicate way.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Huck Finn For This Useful Post:

     Kanenas (04-20-2021)

Page 103 of 129 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Uralic
    By JoeyP37 in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-2021, 03:15 AM
  2. Replies: 160
    Last Post: 11-16-2020, 06:28 PM
  3. Ante Aikio on Proto-Uralic
    By anglesqueville in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-03-2019, 05:36 AM
  4. Eurogenes Uralic genes Analysis
    By J Man in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-26-2015, 01:20 PM
  5. Is there Tocharian influence in Uralic? Implications?
    By newtoboard in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-06-2015, 12:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •