Page 97 of 129 FirstFirst ... 47879596979899107 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 970 of 1288

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #961
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Here is the thing that I see here very often: tunnel vision.
    That's about what I'm trying to warn you guys.


    http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/GenesAndLanguage.png
    Last edited by Jaska; 04-19-2021 at 05:25 AM.

  2. #962
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    4,850
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Here is the thing that I see here very often: tunnel vision.
    That's about what I'm trying to warn you guys.

    http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/GenesAndLanguage.png
    This isn't convincing at all, because it fails to explain all of the very specific and rather recent links between geographically far flung Uralic speakers that point to N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry being part of the Proto-Uralic package.

    For example...



    https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/...en-uralic.html

  3. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Generalissimo For This Useful Post:

     Alain (04-19-2021),  Coldmountains (04-19-2021),  CopperAxe (04-19-2021),  Michał (04-19-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (04-20-2021),  parastais (04-19-2021),  Ryukendo (04-19-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (04-19-2021),  Zelto (04-19-2021)

  4. #963
    Registered Users
    Posts
    507
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    I'm sure you people can try to google with different languages.
    But CopperAxe has already decided, that he isn't going to accept any linguistic results and rather goes with pseudoscience here, predicting language from DNA, so I see no reason to waste my time on lost cases.
    Now now Jack, don't start pretending that your "linguistic results" are by any means definitive and representative of a consensus because damn near everything seems to be up for grabs regarding Uralic, as evidenced by the various wildly different scenarios I've seen proposed regarding the Uralic question. The way you're setting up this debate as "linguistic results" butting against "genetic results" is either disingenious or arrogant, you can decide for yourself which applies the best.

    Furthermore your scenarios for explaining these results are so far out of there that I, and I assume many others, can't take them serious. Some people might be easily swayed by some appeal to authority angle but that doesnt work with me.

    You have to make a good case to convince me. One which can be demonstrated through means such as population genetics, archaeology or historiography.

    And despite the hundreds of comments you have totally failed to do so, and I doubt you will be dropping the MOAB anytime soon. Maybe some more of those doodles I guess...

    If you cant link your criteria for a Proto-Uralic homeland to actual concrete populations shown by way of archaeology or genetics, then yes I am will within my rights to consider it malarkey. Call it what you will, DNA pseudoscience or whatever (which is silly by the way as I always take multi-faceted approaches to any topic), but at least my takes do not involve trolls, fairies or other creatures of the imagination such as NWIE speakers in the vicinity of the Volga.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Generalissimo (04-19-2021),  Michał (04-19-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (04-19-2021)

  6. #964
    Registered Users
    Posts
    428
    Sex

    Greece
    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    This isn't convincing at all, because it fails to explain all of the very specific and rather recent links between geographically far flung Uralic speakers that point to N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry being part of the Proto-Uralic package.
    Even if that is true, part of the package = not the whole picture.
    By the way, I saw your posts and R-CTS1211 is not 'obviously Slavic'. It is definetely pre-Slavic.

  7. #965
    Registered Users
    Posts
    487
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    If you cant link your criteria for a Proto-Uralic homeland to actual concrete populations shown by way of archaeology or genetics...
    Linguists don't work that way. Archeologists don't, on the hand, rely on linguistic results and so on. This is one of the reasons scientists are being quoted in peer reviewed scientific publications. Forums like this then are very handy for trolls, fairies and other creatures like that, as you may have already noticed.

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

     Jaska (04-19-2021),  Ryukendo (04-19-2021)

  9. #966
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,337
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Here is the thing that I see here very often: tunnel vision.
    That's about what I'm trying to warn you guys.


    http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/GenesAndLanguage.png
    Two things:

    1) Genes are incredibly sticky. Once they enter a population, there is virtually no way to wash them out. This is the reason why they are such a good "tracer dye" for the movements of language-speakers or the carriers of a particular archaeological character--genetic signatures are like fast dyes that stain everything they touch and never fade. You resorted yourself to such reasoning when you tried to argue how, given the idea that proto-Finnics passed through the area now populated by Lithuanians and southern Latvians in the "Southern Route", the absence of Nganasan-related/kra001 ancestry in Lithuanians and southern Latvians is strong evidence against proto-Finnics having had such ancestry.

    The archaeological traits associated with the movements of a group of language-speakers can keep changing ("change at every stage" as you like to put it) but given the stickiness/staining tendency of genetics, some residue of the genetics of the proto-language speakers almost always remains. It is entirely rational to engage in "tunnel vision" when looking for a tracer dye--such reasoning has served us incredibly well when it comes to Indo-European.

    2) When you talk about proto-Uralic in the Volga-Kama you keep referring back to your own two articles published in Finnish (Both titles start with: "Kantauralin ..."). We can't read them so we don't know what you say in them. Wikipedia cites your articles as saying:

    It has been suggested that the Proto-Uralic homeland was located near the Ural Mountains, either on the European or the Siberian side. The main reason to suppose that there was a Siberian homeland has been the traditional taxonomic model that sees the Samoyedic branch as splitting off first. Because the present border between the Samoyedic and the Ugric branch is in Western Siberia, the original split was seen to have occurred there too. However, because the Ugric languages are known to have been spoken earlier on the European side of the Urals, a European homeland would be equally possible. In recent years, it has also been argued on the basis of phonology that the oldest split was not between the Samoyedic and the Finno-Ugric but between the Finno-Permic and the Ugro-Samoyedic language groups.[1]...

    ...A Siberian homeland has been claimed on the basis of two coniferous tree names in Proto-Uralic, but the trees (Abies sibirica and Pinus cembra) have for a long time been present also in the far east of Europe. A European homeland is supported by words for 'bee', 'honey', 'elm' etc.[2] They can be reconstructed already to Proto-Uralic, if Samoyedic is no longer seen as the first branch to split off.[3]
    Both of these arguments rely on Samoyedic not being the first branch to break off, but there is dispute about that, i.e. reasonable people can disagree about this. Putting this argument aside for the time being, what are the arguments that you think almost all Uralicists will agree with you on that place the homeland in the Volga-Kama? Could you summarise them in English here, so we can all read about them?
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 04-19-2021 at 02:28 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (04-19-2021),  JoeyP37 (04-19-2021),  Michał (04-19-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (04-20-2021),  parastais (04-19-2021),  Pribislav (04-19-2021),  Zelto (04-19-2021)

  11. #967
    Registered Users
    Posts
    487
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    1) Genes are incredibly sticky. Once they enter a population, there is virtually no way to wash them out. This is the reason why they are such a good "tracer dye" for the movements of language-speakers or the carriers of a particular archaeological character--genetic signatures are like fast dyes that stain everything they touch and never fade. You resorted yourself to such reasoning when you tried to argue how, given the idea that proto-Finnics passed through the area now populated by Lithuanians and southern Latvians in the "Southern Route", the absence of Nganasan-related/kra001 ancestry in Lithuanians and southern Latvians is strong evidence against proto-Finnics having had such ancestry.
    Kind of side note but still: would you, because of paternal N, say that fex Lithuanians descend partly from Uralic speakers?
    Last edited by Huck Finn; 04-19-2021 at 05:12 PM.

  12. #968
    Registered Users
    Posts
    507
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    Linguists don't work that way. Archeologists don't, on the hand, rely on linguistic results and so on. This is one of the reasons scientists are being quoted in peer reviewed scientific publications. Forums like this then are very handy for trolls, fairies and other creatures like that, as you may have already noticed.
    Right, and what happened when people were too stuck in their own lanes were things such as the Anatolian hypothesis of Indo-European languages, which completely ignored two centuries of intense german philology and linguistics. Or you had macro-languages like Nostratic, which in hindsight have linguistic connections which make no sense. Both ar theories which have been supported in peer reviewed articles. You also had people who combined knowledge from all relevant factors, like J.P Mallory, Helena Kuzmina and David W. Anthony and lo and behold they actually were able to describe scenarios in decent to full accordance with the current archaeogenetic findings. Whereas things like Indo-Uralic and an Anatolian origin of Indo-European languages have fallen out of favour. As they should've, because they never took in account the evidences from the other fields.

    Clearly what you have to do is take an approach where you look at several facets, and not blindly ignoring several in favour of one. If you're not doing that, you're just making sandcastles.

    Let's go over the scenario again actually;

    So hypothetically, we have a scenario where Proto-Uralic speakers were proximate to the Proto-Indo-European homeland, neverminding the fact that late PIE speakers lived in the Altai-Sayan. Some influence, some loan words etc going into Uralic, but literally not one single piece of evidence in the hundreds of Indo-European languages from th bronze age to our day that there were contacts between the two in their respective (Pre-)Proto-periods. But hey, linguistic influences are not always bi-directional.

    Then it developed in vicinity of NWIE speakers, Fatyanovovo I guess, and Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranians which over time became Proto-Indo-Iranians and separate Iranic and Indo-Aryans, who for some reason could not have lived in the Forest steppe lived on the steppes south of them. This is evidenced by a supposed layer of NWIE influence in Finno-Permic. Yet Indo-Iranians, where we have recited verses going to the bronze age in both Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages do not show one bit of this supposed Northwestern Indo-European layer. But Uralic does. Makes you think right?

    If there are no populations which are directly paternally ancestral to Uralic people west of the Urals by or before 2000 bc and if there are no people which qualify as NWIE speakers in the vicinity, then clearly a proposal based on linguistic grounds highly dependent on those factors does not work. And I don't see why we would have to pretend it does or entertain the possibility because it is something suggested by linguists. Some linguists I should say, as Jaska's opinions here are not the status quo, at all.

    I mean these three articles all propose something wildly different to that scenario. Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic not developing in proximity of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-Iranian loans after Proto-Uralic breakup etc.

    https://www.academia.edu/40193033/Proto_Uralic
    https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul...ml?language=en
    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/ab...-011619-030405

    So if these three scenarios are fairly plausible when taking into account what we know from archaeology and ancient population genetics, and the aformentioned scenario above is not, then why have faith in that one?

    Despite the breadth of research, the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic remains much more fragmentary than that of Proto-Indo-European and many aspects of the protolanguage remain poorly understood and open to debate. This is due not only to the shallow philological records but also to the uneven state of research between different levels of language: phonological and lexical reconstruction have received the most attention, whereas the comparative study of morphology has been less systematic and methodologically less advanced, and research in diachronic syntax has been scarce indeed.

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (04-19-2021),  JoeyP37 (04-19-2021),  Michał (04-19-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (04-20-2021),  parastais (04-19-2021)

  14. #969
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,337
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Right, and what happened when people were too stuck in their own lanes were things such as the Anatolian hypothesis of Indo-European languages, which completely ignored two centuries of intense german philology and linguistics. Or you had macro-languages like Nostratic, which in hindsight have linguistic connections which make no sense. Both ar theories which have been supported in peer reviewed articles. You also had people who combined knowledge from all relevant factors, like J.P Mallory, Helena Kuzmina and David W. Anthony and lo and behold they actually were able to describe scenarios in decent to full accordance with the current archaeogenetic findings. Whereas things like Indo-Uralic and an Anatolian origin of Indo-European languages have fallen out of favour. As they should've, because they never took in account the evidences from the other fields.

    Clearly what you have to do is take an approach where you look at several facets, and not blindly ignoring several in favour of one. If you're not doing that, you're just making sandcastles.

    Let's go over the scenario again actually;

    So hypothetically, we have a scenario where Proto-Uralic speakers were proximate to the Proto-Indo-European homeland, neverminding the fact that late PIE speakers lived in the Altai-Sayan. Some influence, some loan words etc going into Uralic, but literally not one single piece of evidence in the hundreds of Indo-European languages from th bronze age to our day that there were contacts between the two in their respective (Pre-)Proto-periods. But hey, linguistic influences are not always bi-directional.

    Then it developed in vicinity of NWIE speakers, Fatyanovovo I guess, and Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranians which over time became Proto-Indo-Iranians and separate Iranic and Indo-Aryans, who for some reason could not have lived in the Forest steppe lived on the steppes south of them. This is evidenced by a supposed layer of NWIE influence in Finno-Permic. Yet Indo-Iranians, where we have recited verses going to the bronze age in both Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages do not show one bit of this supposed Northwestern Indo-European layer. But Uralic does. Makes you think right?

    If there are no populations which are directly paternally ancestral to Uralic people west of the Urals by or before 2000 bc and if there are no people which qualify as NWIE speakers in the vicinity, then clearly a proposal based on linguistic grounds highly dependent on those factors does not work. And I don't see why we would have to pretend it does or entertain the possibility because it is something suggested by linguists. Some linguists I should say, as Jaska's opinions here are not the status quo, at all.

    I mean these three articles all propose something wildly different to that scenario. Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic not developing in proximity of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-Iranian loans after Proto-Uralic breakup etc.

    https://www.academia.edu/40193033/Proto_Uralic
    https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul...ml?language=en
    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/ab...-011619-030405

    So if these three scenarios are fairly plausible when taking into account what we know from archaeology and ancient population genetics, and the aformentioned scenario above is not, then why have faith in that one?
    But the linguistic mainstream has always supported the Pontic-Caspian homeland for IE, and in fact the Anatolian hypothesis, which remained fringe opinion in linguistics all throughout its life, was proposed by Colin Renfrew, an archaeologist--not a linguist. The "Moscow school" of linguistics (behind Nostraticism, strongly supporting Altaicism etc.) has also failed to gain any adherence among Western linguists and also does not form a plurality of the linguistics community in Russia either. People like Alan Bomhard who spread Nostraticist stuff in the West are definitely relegated to the illegitimate fringe, and there are many good linguists working in Russian on Uralic and Indo-European using more mainstream methods.

    I think there's an issue where fringe and non-mainstream theories in linguistics, as well as fringe linguists doing poorly-supported work, tend to receive far too much attention in the popular press and in the public imagination (for perhaps the same reasons/temptations that drive some specialists themselves into supporting wild theories), which make people think of linguists and linguistics as being less dependable than they actually are. The mainstream of linguistic theory is incredibly boring and technical, carried out by generations of poorly-paid grade students in dusty rooms, writing things like "the origins of accentual mobility in Northeastern Slavic languages". At least in my experience reading linguistics, the comparative method tends to severely, severely constrain valid comparisons. This seems to make it quite easy for linguists working within the mainstream to judge the plausibility of work according to the methodological standards of this mainstream; there are many issues that mainstream linguists are agnostic about, or regard as unproven (or even very difficult/impossible to be proved) but actually surprisingly few issues that they explicitly disagree on.

    This also means that major discoveries are precious and incredibly rare (so the temptation is suuuper strong to amass low-quality evidence to make a name for yourself by proclaiming e.g. new long-range relationships, or striking evidence of substrates, etc.) but these same discoveries often receive broad acceptance quite quickly when the evidence base is good. Three "long-range" hypotheses and a substrate hypothesis that have received broad acceptance recently:
    1) Tai-Kradai and Austronesian are related. The evidence for this is super clear from Ostapirat's and Sagart's work; two-syllable words in Austronesian become one-syllable words in Tai through reduction of the first syllable. Evidence for the existence of the first syllable is preserved in the Kra branch of Tai in a regular manner.
    2) Na-Dene and Yeniseian are related. The way that Dene and Yeniseian speakers form words can be explained if the two language families shared a common, polysynthetic ancestor, in which words can be composed by agglomerating a large number of particles, each carrying a bit of meaning, that fit together in a particular order of 'slots' (which may be empty). Here, Dene and Yeniseian preserve evidence for the existence of these slots, in the same positions and order, with regular sound changes, but they have virtually no words shared in common since the connection is so old.
    3) There exists a prefixing language, or a set of prefixing languages, probably associated with agriculturalists in Europe, that donated a great deal of agricultural and animal/plant vocabulary to European branches of Indo-European. There are many words in these domains with predictable patterns of irregular sound correspondences in different European Indo-European languages. E.g. Old High German amsala ‘blackbird’, Lat. merula 2) Latin alauda ‘lark’, Old English lāwerce and 3) Old High German aruz ‘ore’, Latin raudus. This work was most developed by Gus Kroonen.

    Contrast this with how Nostratic or Altaic is received, or the "Afroasiatic/Basque substrate theory of Germanic/Celtic", after decades and decades of work and even huge "etymological dictionaries" (the "etymological dictionaries" for Nostratic and Altaic, with hundreds and hundreds of pages of supposed cognates, were supposed to prove, once and for all, that these hypotheses were real, but both books sank like a stone in a pond after they were published and are basically ignored today). Mainstream linguists were able to show, with random selections of the words in those dictionaries, that the authors of the Moscow school made all kinds of rookie mistakes and prescribed all kinds of impossibilities (e.g. making a "cognate" by chopping up a compound word wrongly in a nonsensical way in the source language).

    I think we can cut Jaska a bit of slack here. We all have biases, and I agree his argumentation in parts where he tries to tie linguistics to archaeological cultures and populations is super poor (it makes sense the members of this forum may be more informed about these matters than even professionals--this is a very new field anyway). But the linguistics should stand on its own merits, and it might actually be the case that some so-called "NWIE" words remain even after new generations of linguists have followed the good work of Holopainen and Kummel (regarding the true origins of the "NWIE" layer) to its logical conclusions. How much these small, remaining numbers of NWIE words might actually constrain the Uralic homeland (or for that matter, how much the Ugro-Samoyedic hypothesis constrains the homeland) if they are valid is a separate matter from the veracity of the linguistic theories themselves.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 04-19-2021 at 06:06 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     CopperAxe (04-19-2021),  Jaska (04-19-2021),  JoeyP37 (04-19-2021),  Michał (04-19-2021),  parastais (04-19-2021),  Zelto (04-19-2021)

  16. #970
    Registered Users
    Posts
    507
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    But the linguistic mainstream has always supported the Pontic-Caspian homeland for IE, and in fact the Anatolian hypothesis, which remained fringe opinion in linguistics all throughout its life, was proposed by Colin Renfrew, an archaeologist--not a linguist. The "Moscow school" of linguistics (behind Nostraticism, strongly supporting Altaicism etc.) has also failed to gain any adherence among Western linguists and also does not form a plurality of the linguistics community in Russia either. People like Alan Bomhard who spread Nostraticist stuff in the West are definitely relegated to the illegitimate fringe, and there are many good linguists working in Russian on Uralic and Indo-European using more mainstream methods.
    I think you missed my point there a little. I'm aware of who Colin Renfrew is and it is precisely for that reason why I mentioned the Anatolian hypothesis as it was argued purely on archaeological grounds with total disregard for the linguistic evidence. The point being is that when you disregard findings from other fields of studies, you might end up argueing for something outlandish. An archaeological example, and a linguistic example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    I think there's an issue where fringe and non-mainstream theories in linguistics, as well as fringe linguists doing poorly-supported work, tend to receive far too much attention in the popular press and in the public imagination (for perhaps the same reasons/temptations that drive some specialists themselves into supporting wild theories), which make people think of linguists and linguistics as being less dependable than they actually are. The mainstream of linguistic theory is incredibly boring and technical, carried out by generations of poorly-paid grade students in dusty rooms, writing things like "the origins of accentual mobility in Northeastern Slavic languages". At least in my experience reading linguistics, the comparative method tends to severely, severely constrain valid comparisons. This seems to make it quite easy for linguists working within the mainstream to judge the plausibility of work according to the methodological standards of this mainstream; there are many issues that mainstream linguists are agnostic about, or regard as unproven (or even very difficult/impossible to be proved) but actually surprisingly few issues that they explicitly disagree on.

    This also means that major discoveries are precious and incredibly rare (so the temptation is suuuper strong to amass low-quality evidence to make a name for yourself by proclaiming e.g. new long-range relationships, or striking evidence of substrates, etc.) but these same discoveries often receive broad acceptance quite quickly when the evidence base is good. Three "long-range" hypotheses and a substrate hypothesis that have received broad acceptance recently:
    1) Tai-Kradai and Austronesian are related. The evidence for this is super clear from Ostapirat's and Sagart's work; two-syllable words in Austronesian become one-syllable words in Tai through reduction of the first syllable. Evidence for the existence of the first syllable is preserved in the Kra branch of Tai in a regular manner.
    2) Na-Dene and Yeniseian are related. The way that Dene and Yeniseian speakers form words can be explained if the two language families shared a common, polysynthetic ancestor, in which words can be composed by agglomerating a large number of particles, each carrying a bit of meaning, that fit together in a particular order of 'slots' (which may be empty). Here, Dene and Yeniseian preserve evidence for the existence of these slots, in the same positions and order, with regular sound changes, but they have virtually no words shared in common since the connection is so old.
    3) There exists a prefixing language, or a set of prefixing languages, probably associated with agriculturalists in Europe, that donated a great deal of agricultural and animal/plant vocabulary to European branches of Indo-European. There are many words in these domains with predictable patterns of irregular sound correspondences in different European Indo-European languages. E.g. Old High German amsala ‘blackbird’, Lat. merula 2) Latin alauda ‘lark’, Old English lāwerce and 3) Old High German aruz ‘ore’, Latin raudus. This work was most developed by Gus Kroonen.

    Contrast this with how Nostratic or Altaic is received, or the "Afroasiatic substrate theory of Germanic", after decades and decades of work and even huge "etymological dictionaries" (the "etymological dictionaries" for Nostratic and Altaic, with hundreds and hundreds of pages of supposed cognates, were supposed to prove, once and for all, that these hypotheses were real, but both books sank like a stone in a pond after they were published and are basically ignored today). Mainstream linguists were able to show, with random selections of the words in those dictionaries, that the authors of the Moscow school made all kinds of rookie mistakes and prescribed all kinds of impossibilities (e.g. making a "cognate" by chopping up a compound word wrongly in a nonsensical way in the source language).
    Fully agree but to me it has slowly becoming obvious Uralic originating west of the Urals belongs in that same category, especially now that the criteria for placing it in the area have been pointed out to me. I genuinely thought the evidence for it was far more concrete than it was. It's not that weak and doesn't seem to be that strongly supported amongst other linguists either.

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

     Michał (04-19-2021),  parastais (04-19-2021),  Ryukendo (04-19-2021)

Page 97 of 129 FirstFirst ... 47879596979899107 ... 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
  •