Page 104 of 129 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106114 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1288

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #1031
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    They switched to English in the end, so nah They followed their pattern of taking the language of wives/locals
    Yes, again a language switch. But they did not switch from Donsk tunga to English, did they?

  2. #1032
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Werent the Avar N lineages mostly belonging to a cluster not strongly associated with Uralic speakers to begin with?



    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
    Have you ever had a look at Nganasans, for comparison? I guess not.

  3. #1033
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,722
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    Briefly:

    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.
    ...
    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.
    To reiterate and avoid any futile crosstalk - There are two separate discussions, here, tied to Jaska's recent posts.
    The first concerns the means through which ideas are generated and tested. This is what I've predominantly commented on (the minutiae of Uralic are beyond my knowledge).
    The second is with respect to pU and its' dissemination across Eurasia. This is what you're taking issue with for the most part.

    If the formal correlation stats point to the same outcome in both modern and aDNA, then, the genetic data is quite clear and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
    Clearly, that data simply can't be ignored or explained away on the basis of any vagueness regarding the state of the discourse regarding the pU urheimat.

    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.
    This is a personalisation of the argument (reminder: against our Terms of Service).
    That may (or may not) be the case - Let's avoid that please.

    ...In regards to the problem-solving in forums such as this, well, that's a different issue and it can't be projected onto this thread and us.
    Given Jaska's made several comments across the forum regarding this apparent issue, where he's regularly cited the absence of a robust, methodological approach to addressing these problems, some defense of the approach taken by yourself and others is appropriate.

    This is a matter worth contemplating at the least, if readers wish to acquire a better skillset with material analysis and interpretation.

    Yes I am, although I don't know whether you did this subconsciously or not. Others have done the same here, and it's annoying.
    I'm not convinced that you'd synthesised my earlier, first message in this thread.
    Otherwise, this second personalisation of the discussion wouldn't be occurring.

    Jaska has to be judged against the same standards as the rest of us. If he fails to explain his views properly and actively avoids answering difficult questions, then his posts aren't worth much no matter who he is.
    Nobody challenges this.

    I don't really know how thorough Jaska's workflow is. If you say it's thorough then I'll take your word for it.
    I don't know either.
    His work may be substantially biased in at least one domain.
    You're likely no more familiar with the procedures in formal lingustics research than I am.
    Hence the question.

    I'm still waiting for Jaska to clear up some pertinent points, but apparently he's busy questioning our problem-solving workflow and being wrong, repeatedly, for the right reasons???
    Of course he's correct.

    You will not find any reputable researcher who'd argue that a subjective, cauldron-of-ideas-type environment, populated with citizen-scientists without any self-evident awareness of the principles of the scientific method who're seeking to prove or disprove their ideas (see Ryu reply), is superior or comparable to the same group implementing some degree of rigour in formulating their research question, establishing hypotheses, addressing bias etc., especially with respect to data that's squarely quantitative.
    One can brainstorm with some degree of order.

    In no multiverse do you, or anyone else reading this thread, not benefit from being aware of these principles, particularly bias, given it is effectively bound to the human condition.

    Having said that, per my comments above, Jaska too may also eventually be proven wrong, even with a more scientifically-rigorous approach, and being a published author never places anyone above critique.
    Citing the scientific method or calling for more robust assessment approaches instead of directly answering your questions clearly isn't a satisfactory approach, nor does it compensate for any potential deficiencies in a given researcher's work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    I really don't agree that science works in a hypothesis testing scenario, rather than a "Bayesian storm". In fact I would argue scientific discussion moves along lines very similar to how discussion on this forum works!--if much more professionally and less emotionally. If IE linguists had to piece together what happened in the past from fragmented linguistic materials and archaeological/ethnological correlates with only a hypothesis testing approach, they would begin by enumerating the hypothesis space fairly precisely (i.e. all possible hypotheses) and one need not go into the details of how this can happen to see how impractical that would be. The process has to be inductive, not deductive; David Anthony did not write his book by relying on hypothesis testing... The whole point of the Kuhnian understanding of what science is (one paradigm supported by evidence, then countervailing evidence builds up, until no extensions of the paradigm can explain things well anymore and we have to switch to another paradigm) is built out of Bayesian and not hypothesis-testing principles, and a computational cognitive scientist has come up with just such a Bayesian model e.g. here. In fact the entire basis for how computational cog sci explains the human capacity for adaptive theorization and changing inferences with evidence was built out of a Bayesian framework.
    May appear contradictory, but I agree, albeit with the caveat that my comments were a generalised summary of the means through which conclusions are reached in lay and academic circles (former is predominantly "Bayesian storm", latter makes significant, if not predominant use of the scientific method, depending on the discipline).

    IMO it's largely dependent on i) the developmental state of knowledge within a discipline (may be defined as the extent to which the possibilities per research question may be considered feasible at a particular time), ii) the extent to which discrete "elemental" truths are present (per first principles), and iii) the degree with which observer bias may be satisfactorily contained (as you've touched on in the underlined bit). The modern "soft sciences" seem to still be particularly amenable to the Bayesian approach, likely in part due to ontological and/or epistemiological "squishiness".

    Many established areas of STEM seldom stray beyond hypothesis-based testing, which itself has some hefty limitations (there's an entire domain of literature dedicated to the issue of null hypothesis significance testing - The key takeaway for readers is that even the scientific method is liable to interpretive bias - Isn't a fun read).

    For our purposes, I argue that some incorporation of the general scientific method (specifically in research question formulation, hypothesis testing & validation, bias awareness at the least) would greatly improve the state of discourse, and should be considered a prerequisite when we're analysing quantitative data (e.g. correlation matrices).

    By the way - It isn't lost on me that some proportion of readers aren't particularly interested in the meta-discussion concerning what is effectively orderly problem solving, and are instead more preoccupied with the emotional entanglement over being "right" regarding this discussion.
    I hesitate to say "that's fine". Probably isn't.
    Last edited by DMXX; 04-20-2021 at 07:52 AM. Reason: line

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Jaska (04-20-2021),  Ryukendo (04-20-2021)

  5. #1034
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    4,850
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    The way I see this discussion is based on a. Jaska's etc. idea of Proto Uralic (the language) being located in Ural area, probably in Volga-Kama area, because of linguistic (again, he's discussing the language) reasons and b. the idea of some other people, apparently including you, that Proto Uralic was spoken in Krasnoyarsk Krai because of genetic reasons and based on kra001. There's a serious mismatch, even though there's always room for different interpretations, of course, as long as genetics are not used as linguistic evidence and vice versa.
    Jaska hasn't yet explained properly why he still puts the Proto-Uralic homeland in the Volga-Kama area considering all the new data we have, but this theory seems to have problems with the genetic facts and the linguistic facts.

    On the other hand, my theory that Proto-Uralic was initially spoken somewhere deep in Siberia doesn't appear to contradict any genetic or linguistic facts.

    And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Avars? Their N lineages don't look especially Uralic, and no one ever said that there was going to be a 1:1 correlation between genetics and language.

  6. #1035
    Registered Users
    Posts
    957
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    Yes, again a language switch. But they did not switch from Donsk tunga to English, did they?
    Thing is they followed same pattern - go with language of locals.
    Where Uralics would have to “just before their Big Bang take language of wives”, but during Big Bang make everyone else Uralic. Unlikely, if you are honest to yourself and not just argue for sake of arguing. Or for unwillingness to see N as your linguistic ancestor for whatever reasons.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     CopperAxe (04-20-2021),  davit (04-20-2021),  Generalissimo (04-20-2021)

  8. #1036
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,722
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    That is not usually explicated, but in the peer review it should come up, if there is need.
    Could you please elaborate, roughly, on what it entails?

    Are you obligated to work with at least one other researcher, is there a bias assessment tool for any primary sources you include etc.?

  9. #1037
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    Jaska hasn't yet explained properly why he still puts the Proto-Uralic homeland in the Volga-Kama area considering all the new data we have, but this theory seems to have problems with the genetic facts and the linguistic facts.
    Yes he has and you have not provided us with any new linguistic data, have you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    On the other hand, my theory that Proto-Uralic was initially spoken somewhere deep in Siberia doesn't appear to contradict any genetic or linguistic facts.
    It contradicts linguistic results, because there you're asking for proof of innocence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Avars? Their N lineages don't look especially Uralic, and no one ever said that there was going to be a 1:1 correlation between genetics and language.
    Do N lineages of Nganasans look Uralic? Also, modern distributions are not really a proof of anything, some or even many of the groups nowadays related to Avar N lineage may be partly language switchers and probably also are. That being said, the maps you posted, related to Finnic-Ugric/Hungarian N-Z1936 do most probably show Uralic expansions, as the post N-Z1936 split apparently took place in already dispersed East and West Uralic entities, in Ural area. There's no Finnic N-Z1936 among EDIT Ugrics and no Ugric N-Z1936 among Finnics. Looks rather solid to me.
    Last edited by Huck Finn; 04-20-2021 at 08:27 AM. Reason: clarification

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

     Jaska (04-20-2021),  JoeyP37 (04-20-2021)

  11. #1038
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Thing is they followed same pattern - go with language of locals.
    Where Uralics would have to “just before their Big Bang take language of wives”, but during Big Bang make everyone else Uralic. Unlikely, if you are honest to yourself and not just argue for sake of arguing. Or for unwillingness to see N as your linguistic ancestor for whatever reasons.
    At what stage of Bang does Lithuania then belong, not speaking Uralic?

  12. #1039
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    4,850
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    Yes he has and you have not provided us with any new linguistic data, have you?
    He hasn't yet explained why he's pinned Garino-Bor as the Proto-Uralic candidate culture, nor has he revealed the anchors that tie Proto-Uralic to Europe.

    And I don't have to provide any linguistic new data, because there's nothing new in the claim that Proto-Uralic had its roots in Siberia.

    It contradicts linguistic results, because there you're asking for proof of innocence.
    Which linguistic results does my theory contradict?

  13. #1040
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    4,850
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    At what stage of Bang does Lithuania then belong, not speaking Uralic?
    Lithuania is located close to the western edge of the early Uralic expansion.

    Obviously, if we're being realistic, then we should expected the Uralic expansion to also affect non-Uralic speaking populations near its borders, in a variety of ways, and no one ever claimed otherwise.

Page 104 of 129 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106114 ... 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
  •