Page 59 of 67 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 662

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #581
    Registered Users
    Posts
    111
    Sex

    We may still be continue talking about Nganasan ancestry as a habit but kra001 gives much tighter fits than even the combination of Nganasan and Nanai which it most resembles.

    Target: Saami
    Distance: 2.9587% / 0.02958736
    28.4 KAZ_Golden_Horde_Euro
    20.4 Nganassan
    16.8 Swedish
    12.2 Baltic_LVA_MN
    11.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
    4.4 RUS_Petrovka_MLBA
    3.6 Nanai
    2.4 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o

    Target: Saami
    Distance: 2.0838% / 0.02083783
    24.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    19.0 Swedish
    18.8 Latvian
    15.4 Baltic_LVA_MN
    10.0 KAZ_Golden_Horde_Euro
    4.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
    4.0 RUS_Petrovka_MLBA
    2.2 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
    1.4 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Standardized Ape For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (02-24-2021)

  3. #582
    Registered Users
    Posts
    137
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    “ Where have I ever allowed myself unscientific statements? Evidence, please.
    If I make guesses, I tell that they are guesses.”
    Bolded part in your response to me.
    In which page?

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    “ Novgorod area was instead occupied by Meryan-related languages. So, the people who arrived to Ingria and Northern Estonia from the east at the beginning of the Iron Age could not have been Finnic speakers. Therefore your guess, that N1c and Nganasan ancestry in those IA samples relate to Finnic language, is wrong.”
    I have never read on Meryan substrate for Estonian. Or Meryan toponymy in Estonia.
    What scientific evidence is there that Tarand graves in (Northern) Estonia spoke Meryan related languages. Or that they were not ancestors of Baltic Finns.
    So you should have used is that you guess that my guess is wrong ))))
    1. That some people from the east arrived in Estonia, does not mean that they were numerous enough to leave placenames. Placenames remain only, if the newcomers do not assimilate to the local population but bring their language to the area.
    2. It is not a guess, when I tell you about the linguistic results.
    It is a guess, when you ignore the linguistic results.
    Last edited by Jaska; 02-23-2021 at 08:30 AM.

  4. #583
    Registered Users
    Posts
    111
    Sex

    While I don't agree with Jaska about everything there is no shame in presenting some critical ideas. Of course self-criticism is always the best. Generalissimo jumped the gun when he hastily associated the North-Central Siberian deep-drift which connects Nganasan, Ket, Yukaghirs, Koryaks and kra001 with Uralics specifically without much consideration about what it is and how it come to be. He was locked into an indefensible position which made him look quite confused and frustrated not even able to come up with any arguments other than appeal to his own authority. If he spent a few minutes thinking it through all of that could have been avoided.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Standardized Ape For This Useful Post:

     Howl (02-24-2021),  Jaska (02-23-2021)

  6. #584
    Registered Users
    Posts
    745
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    It is a guess when you say that in Tarand graves in Estonia those were Meryan speakers or were not Baltic Finnic speakers.
    No linguistic results for that.

    Their route via Novgorod is a guess
    That only Meryan speakers could have moved via Novgorod because there were Meryan toponyms there (left when?) is a guess
    That based on two guesses Tarand grave people were not Baltic Finns is also a guess, besides a guess not really backed up by archeologists of different times.

    Edit:
    “ Traces are found of “East Čudes” and, further west, “West Čudes”. Both of these were apparently not Finnic tribes. The language of the East Čudes shows similarities with Meryan. The West Čudian language shows some features of Mordvin and probably Early Proto- Finnic.” - Early Proto Finnic! If Pauli Rahkonen 2013 made such statement based on toponyms, then I see no other option but believe that Proto-Finnic formed somewhere nearby and then Mordvin arrived in that place after.
    What is chronology of those languages was Proto-Finnic contemporary with Mordvin already? Or Mordvin formed later?
    Last edited by parastais; 02-23-2021 at 09:07 AM.

  7. #585
    Registered Users
    Posts
    111
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    It is a guess when you say that in Tarand graves in Estonia those were Meryan speakers or were not Baltic Finnic speakers.
    No linguistic results for that.

    Their route via Novgorod is a guess
    That only Meryan speakers could have moved via Novgorod because there were Meryan toponyms there (left when?) is a guess
    That based on two guesses Tarand grave people were not Baltic Finns is also a guess, besides a guess not really backed up by archeologists of different times.

    Edit:
    “ Traces are found of “East Čudes” and, further west, “West Čudes”. Both of these were apparently not Finnic tribes. The language of the East Čudes shows similarities with Meryan. The West Čudian language shows some features of Mordvin and probably Early Proto- Finnic.” - Early Proto Finnic! If Pauli Rahkonen 2013 made such statement based on toponyms, then I see no other option but believe that Proto-Finnic formed somewhere nearby and then Mordvin arrived in that place after.
    What is chronology of those languages was Proto-Finnic contemporary with Mordvin already? Or Mordvin formed later?
    In 900-700 BC all West Uralic languages would have basically been dialects of proto-West Uralic. What we see later in the area(division between these so-called Merya- and non-Merya) may come from some later migration waves.
    N-CTS3451 which has a Vologdan at the root may map out the Meryan/East Čude settlement.
    https://yfull.com/tree/N-CTS3451/
    That would probably leave us with some West Uralics with uncertain association in the area before them. Maybe they can't be classified as either proto-Finnic or Mordvinic.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Standardized Ape For This Useful Post:

     Jaska (02-23-2021),  parastais (02-23-2021),  Ryukendo (02-23-2021)

  9. #586
    Registered Users
    Posts
    137
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    It is a guess when you say that in Tarand graves in Estonia those were Meryan speakers or were not Baltic Finnic speakers.
    No linguistic results for that.
    I never said that all the Tarand grave people were Meryans. I said that people coming to Estonia from the east at Iron Age cannot be Finnic-speakers, because in their source region Meryan-related languages were spoken.

    The N-man is OLS10 = Hiiemägi at Kunda, tarand III, burial 9.
    Here are the isotopic results:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...als_in_Estonia

    They clearly show that the two individuals from Kunda tarands were immigrants from another area, while other Estonian samples were local people (with possible exception of Muuksi-5). Their origin is probably in the Northwest Russia, but because isotopic results are lacking there, direct comparison cannot be made. Still, at least the two Kunda tarand individuals do not seem to come from the west.

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    That only Meryan speakers could have moved via Novgorod because there were Meryan toponyms there (left when?) is a guess
    No, it is not a guess, when we have the linguistic results that east from Estonia Meryan-related languages were spoken, and that the Finnic language arrived to Estonia from the south.

    Guessing is everything that ignores these linguistic results, and you will understand it sooner or later.

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    That based on two guesses Tarand grave people were not Baltic Finns is also a guess, besides a guess not really backed up by archeologists of different times.
    See the isotopic evidence above.

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    Edit:
    “ Traces are found of “East Čudes” and, further west, “West Čudes”. Both of these were apparently not Finnic tribes. The language of the East Čudes shows similarities with Meryan. The West Čudian language shows some features of Mordvin and probably Early Proto- Finnic.” - Early Proto Finnic! If Pauli Rahkonen 2013 made such statement based on toponyms, then I see no other option but believe that Proto-Finnic formed somewhere nearby and then Mordvin arrived in that place after.
    What is chronology of those languages was Proto-Finnic contemporary with Mordvin already? Or Mordvin formed later?
    Finnic, Saamic, Mordvinic and probably Meryanic are descendants of the same West Uralic dialect, which dispersed during the late 2nd millennium BC. But the Late Proto-stages of these branches are of different ages, Proto-Mordvinic being the youngest. In the Finnic branch, South Estonian seem to have begun to differentiate already around the Middle Proto-Finnic stage, although it still participated in many Late Proto-Finnic developments.

    West Chude was still archaic West Uralic, so its taxonomic status is difficult to determine: either a separate branch or "drop-out" of Early Proto-Finnic (not including any other branches), which would make it Para-Finnic.

  10. #587
    Registered Users
    Posts
    745
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    I never said that all the Tarand grave people were Meryans. I said that people coming to Estonia from the east at Iron Age cannot be Finnic-speakers, because in their source region Meryan-related languages were spoken.

    The N-man is OLS10 = Hiiemägi at Kunda, tarand III, burial 9.
    Here are the isotopic results:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...als_in_Estonia

    They clearly show that the two individuals from Kunda tarands were immigrants from another area, while other Estonian samples were local people (with possible exception of Muuksi-5). Their origin is probably in the Northwest Russia, but because isotopic results are lacking there, direct comparison cannot be made. Still, at least the two Kunda tarand individuals do not seem to come from the west.
    Why would they need to come from the West? Uralic languages arrived from the East.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    No, it is not a guess, when we have the linguistic results that east from Estonia Meryan-related languages were spoken, and that the Finnic language arrived to Estonia from the south.

    Guessing is everything that ignores these linguistic results, and you will understand it sooner or later.
    That is FAR from being proven. Besides how can you even prove that based on linguistic results alone? Baltic loanwords? Why should they be picked up South, if they could have been picked up East? What LINGUISTIC feature shows that proto-Finnic was first spoken in South (Latvia? Lithuania? Not Poland..)? I am honestly not against that theory, but could you point me to an article by a professional linguist pointing to Latvia as a place where Proto-Finnic formed? Would be kinda cool.

    The fact is - you are making a mistake of equating "Jaska's interpretation of linguistic results" with "linguistic results". Some scientists time ago before you interpreted linguistic results with Baltic arriving with Corded Ware and Finnish with Comb Ceramic. Probably in a discussion back then someone like you wrote "We should not ignore linguistic results!" You yourself probably have made mistakes in the past and changed your mind on issues. Did you before changing your mind also said "We should not ignore linguistic results!"
    I say linguistic results should not be ignored, but interpretations of them are subject to.. well.. interpration


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Finnic, Saamic, Mordvinic and probably Meryanic are descendants of the same West Uralic dialect, which dispersed during the late 2nd millennium BC. But the Late Proto-stages of these branches are of different ages, Proto-Mordvinic being the youngest. In the Finnic branch, South Estonian seem to have begun to differentiate already around the Middle Proto-Finnic stage, although it still participated in many Late Proto-Finnic developments.

    West Chude was still archaic West Uralic, so its taxonomic status is difficult to determine: either a separate branch or "drop-out" of Early Proto-Finnic (not including any other branches), which would make it Para-Finnic.
    Why could not save wave that brought West Chudes bring also Baltic Finns? From same direction?

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

     JoeyP37 (02-23-2021),  Michał (02-23-2021),  Ryukendo (02-23-2021)

  12. #588
    Registered Users
    Posts
    102
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Swedish 1/2 German
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    U2

    Quote Originally Posted by Standardized Ape View Post
    While I don't agree with Jaska about everything there is no shame in presenting some critical ideas. Of course self-criticism is always the best. Generalissimo jumped the gun when he hastily associated the North-Central Siberian deep-drift which connects Nganasan, Ket, Yukaghirs, Koryaks and kra001 with Uralics specifically without much consideration about what it is and how it come to be. He was locked into an indefensible position which made him look quite confused and frustrated not even able to come up with any arguments other than appeal to his own authority. If he spent a few minutes thinking it through all of that could have been avoided.
    The North-Central Siberian ancestry in kra001 may not have only been spread by Uralics however, that doesn't mean it wasn't still spread by them. I don't think that's what your saying though, right?

    Yukaghirs and Koryaks actually do carry some N-B202, downstream from N-L1026. This is the sister clade, to the Turco-Mongol N-F4205 branch.

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

     Jaska (02-24-2021)

  14. #589
    Registered Users
    Posts
    111
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto View Post
    The North-Central Siberian ancestry in kra001 may not have only been spread by Uralics however, that doesn't mean it wasn't still spread by them. I don't think that's what your saying though, right?

    Yukaghirs and Koryaks actually do carry some N-B202, downstream from N-L1026. This is the sister clade, to the Turco-Mongol N-F4205 branch.
    Right, I do think kra001 is still a pretty good reference for the Siberian ancestry in Uralics or most of it. I never objected to that just the other things.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Standardized Ape For This Useful Post:

     Howl (02-24-2021),  Jaska (02-24-2021)

  16. #590
    Registered Users
    Posts
    137
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Why would they need to come from the West? Uralic languages arrived from the East.
    I just pointed out what the isotopic results tell, so we can exclude the west.
    Nothing is black-and-white: they COULD have come also from the west. It would be circular argumentation if you first decide that they were Finnic speakers, and then you decide that they couldn't have come from the west because they were Finnic speakers. You see the problem here? Guesses upon guesses.

    At least oldest Tarand graves are seen born elsewhere than in the Northeastern Estonia, therefore archaeological results could support also the western origin. But now the isotopic results help us exclude that direction for these two individuals. We just have to accept that isotopic results point to another direction than the general archaeological picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    That is FAR from being proven. Besides how can you even prove that based on linguistic results alone? Baltic loanwords? Why should they be picked up South, if they could have been picked up East? What LINGUISTIC feature shows that proto-Finnic was first spoken in South (Latvia? Lithuania? Not Poland..)? I am honestly not against that theory, but could you point me to an article by a professional linguist pointing to Latvia as a place where Proto-Finnic formed? Would be kinda cool.
    I agree that Lang's model is not necessarily the final solution for the spread of Proto-Finnic, but it is a synthesis finding archaeological matches for the linguistic results. Some of which I present here:

    1. Already in the Upper Volga region there were the northern taiga zone and the southern deciduous/leaf tree zone, northern being original and southern representing the spread of West-Uralic upon the Palaeo-European languages. Saami and Mari derive from the northern zone, having been retained old Uralic words (like *luka '10'), while Finnic and Mordvin derive from the southern zone, sharing loanwords with non-Uralic phonological structures and semantic field of southern forest and agriculture (*kümmin '10', *tammi 'oak', *vešna 'wheat', *lešma 'cow/horse').

    It happens that the livelihood-environmental border goes from Upper Volga to Ladoga, and the spread of Pre-Proto-Saami happened all the way in the northern zone to the Onega-Ladoga isthmus.

    2. Southern loanword layers like (older) Iranian and Baltic are more numerous in Finnic than in other West Uralic branches. Baltic area started already in the Moscow area, and Upper Volga Pozdnyakovo Culture has for a long time connected to Iranians. This again supports southern route for Finnic. Also the oldest Baltic loanwords seem to be connected to hunting and fishing economy, while in the Germanic loanwords there are more agricultural words. But this does not tell so much about the route.

    3. Finnic inner taxonomy shows that the first languages to differentiate were the southernmost ones: first South Estonian, then Livonian. The more northern the area, the later the differentiation of languages. This also supports the southern route for the spread of Finnic.

    4. Placenames of Finnic origin are found in Latvia and few even in Northern Lithuania, while no certain Finnic placenames are found east of Estonia (except in Ingria and the Veps region, both however representing quite recent spread of North Finnic from Finland): there are the Meryanic and West Chudic placenames.

    So, all the linguistic evidence really seems to exclude the possibility, that Finnic could have spread to Estonia right from the east. That means that any gene flow or cultural wave following that route is impossible to connect to the Finnic speakers.

    It is usual for laymen, that when they see a cultural or genetic wave from the east, they think it must represent Uralic language or branch: the one spoken in the area at the present. They are blind to the fact that cultural and genetic waves are numerous, and they keep coming continuously from about every direction. Usually only one of them can be connected to the spread of certain language, and guessing which one it is, is impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    The fact is - you are making a mistake of equating "Jaska's interpretation of linguistic results" with "linguistic results".
    No. I just happen to be the only one here, who knows all the results of Uralic linguistics, and their validity and relevance (versus outdatedness).

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    Some scientists time ago before you interpreted linguistic results with Baltic arriving with Corded Ware and Finnish with Comb Ceramic. Probably in a discussion back then someone like you wrote "We should not ignore linguistic results!" You yourself probably have made mistakes in the past and changed your mind on issues. Did you before changing your mind also said "We should not ignore linguistic results!"
    I say linguistic results should not be ignored, but interpretations of them are subject to.. well.. interpration
    Those connections were always originally made by archaeologists, although many linguists followed them. But not all: there were all the time linguists who knew that archaeological continuity (or genetic, for that matter) cannot testify for linguistic continuity.

    Still, many decades ago there weren't nearly as much linguistic results than we have now. Therefore it was still somehow possible to accept the Late Neolithic presence of Uralic languages in Finland and Baltia. Only since the 90's the cumulative evidence has reached the point were it became impossible to support such views.

    Like in every discipline, so also in linguistics every new paradigm is stronger than the earlier: it is the nature of the cumulative growth of relevant evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    Why could not save wave that brought West Chudes bring also Baltic Finns? From same direction?
    At the moment we know too little about that language. If it can be shown that it doesn't have any developments separating it from Finnic, it could be possibly seen as Para-Finnic. But the evidence above anyway fits better for the Daugava/Dvina route.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jaska For This Useful Post:

     parasar (02-26-2021),  Ryukendo (02-24-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (02-24-2021)

Page 59 of 67 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... 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
  •