jeudi 5 décembre 2013

Barry Cunliffe's theories and mine (Celts and post-Babel)

1) Barry Cunliffe's theories and mine (Celts and post-Babel), 2) Etruscans, hlaf-laib-leipä, Gullah, Hungarian Origins, 3) Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog, 4) Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup, 5) Atta and Fadar, 6) Thrown Out of Group, 7) Answering LAM, 8) Attacked on Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel Subject Again

First off, the similarity and relevance for a Creationist, quoting myself from later on:

This of course goes beyond the scope of this group, but it has implications of more or less directness in all matters of life and of knowledge, including this particular question. Did Celtic originate as a branch of Indo-European? Did Celtic originate as a lingua franca? Did Indo-European originate as a lingua franca?

Barry Cunliffe answers the second of these alternatives with a yes, I have not yet read his book only defended it where it departs from Classical Indo-Europeanists and suggesting he does not go far enough.

[status with video :]

Oxford Academic (Oxford University Press) : New ideas on the origins of the Celts
[Barry Cunliffe, Britain Begins]
I seem to have heard Cunliffe speak about this elsewhere. The Celtic peoples are not invaders and conquerors in the British Isles, but are indigenous peoples.
Very interesting theory that Cunliffe offers! I suppose that I still adhere to the belief that the proto-Celts and Celts originated somewhere in central Europe, i.e. eastern modern Germany or slightly further eastward, then diffused throughout Europe, even reaching as far south as the Anatolian peninsula, where three or so Celtic tribes settled, i.e. Galatians. And, as far west as the Iberian peninsula, where they mixed with the indigenous peoples. There is a northwestern province of Spain, Galicia, that is a reminder of that ancient time.
I have many his books. He writes very well.
Lingvistic research is one thing. Than there is genetic studies as well as archaelogy.
Now I had the occasion to hear him. I think he may well be right. Celtic arising as a lingua franca is how I see the rise of the common indoeuropean traits - in one of my theories about them.

(When I say "be right" I mean the general story, not the time span, of course)

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ...

Une vue créationniste sur l'indo-européen [ibid.]

Coniectura linguistica, pro casu unitatis vetustissimae indo-europaeae linguae. [ibid.]
I total believe the Kurgan-theory about Indoeuropeans, with or without modifications. They will include maybe; Kaukasus, Anatolia and mesopotamia etc.

About Kelts: I believe this IE tribes who settled in Danube-region blended with other protoeuropeans, and formed protokelts-italiks etc. After that in many directions spread out and devided a least protokelts and protoitaliks. Protokelts would be Bell Beakers. Than of course there are theories that folks of Brittish Isles are neither Kelts nor Germans, especialy Picts. Or even that the Picts are germans. I believe that all Brittish Isles including Picts are Kelts, for now.
If we want XIX C. Academia, we can go to IC !

But actually you have a point. Barry Cunliffe's theory has an uneasy relation with italo-celtic pre-unity.

(Uneasy, not impossible)
Marija Gimbutas Kurgan-theory is from 1950ths. And about if Brittish folks are kelts are Kelts or not is not settled. The Kurga theory and so on suits well the genetics.
OK, the Kurgan theory as such is from 50's. The certainty there was a proto-language and an Urheimat is however from XIXth C.
Good ideas not die so easy. Although I do believe in a very large urheimat. About language, I believe in a language with a lot of variations or many close related languages.
I believe the Urheimat for humanity after the Flood is Mt Ararat and for all except Hebrews Babel.

That is why I do not think there was time for a single language to develop to all Indo-European languages still less to all Nostratic ones. And that is why I believe different languages developed some lingua franca, or rather their speakers did, and then borrowed from it into their own languages. I think dynastic arrangements were involved since words like snurus = daughter in law (svärdotter) are so well spread. I suspect religion was involved as well. Rituals often involve objects up to ten. Sometimes also one hundred (like the killing of one hundred oxen when Pythagoras discovered the theoreme about the cathetes and the hypotenuse and the squares of their lengths). But hardly ever one thousand or thirtyfive.

My theory of course supposes that there was long some type of communication going on all over the area of Indo-European community. You know how French and English have given words to lots of other languages, on a lesser scale Hanseatic Low German to the Scandinavian and Teutonic Low German to the Baltic languages. These words do not mean that all these languages stem from those three, but that a lot of their vocabulary does.

Imagine for instance a man presenting himself as "ahhiyawa" in Hattusha, but as "akhaiwos" when contrasting himself to his non-Indoeuropean, Pelasgian, underlings at home, when speaking to his son about it.

He is using the same word, but pronouncing it differently in two different langauges. Precisely as a man who pronounces "presentation" very differently in Swedish or on English (Sw: presentuh-SHOON, but with a certain other twist on the SH sound).

That is what he sees behind the Celtic unity and I behind the Indo-European one.

Now, it seems also that Indo-European grammar straddles between Semitic and Fenno-Ugrian one as far as Verbal Morphology is concerned. And we know that Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Slavonic have each added their specific inventions to verbal morphology. So it is a domain where borrowing can occur. [As can invention, we know the Romance future and conditional were invented in Late Latin phrases]
Noone borrow a new language. Surely not if your own language is of another group, and total different. And that in a time without dictionaries, schools etc. It just never happends.
You are wrong.

You are wrong on oral culture being incapable of language learning especially on vocabulary level. Look at what Roma achieve as linguists.

You are wrong to assume there was no writing when I assume this happened too. Sumerians and Akkadians and Hittites were already using the cuneiform writing.

You are wrong to assume people never borrow from languages belonging to another group. Most Creoles of the Atlantic are West African languages with lots and lots of borrowings from English and Portuguese and French ... in fact so many borrowings as to hide the original language on all but structural level plus remnants of vocabulary (the case of slaves is a bit special, though).

You can be demonstrated to be wrong by the fact that most people who originally picked up the word cousin from that "very late Latin" usually called French did not go to school and did not know how to read.
Hahaha! No I am not wrong. I do not talk about words, I talk about entire language. Noone borrow a entire language, not without conquest and migration. It takes even more to another language-group. Finns still talk finnish and not swedish for example.

[Not all of them, I know places in Sweden where they speak a Swedish or Norwegian dialect where they have settled since Charles IX]
You forgot trade and economic systems, as when Welsh people and Irish people massively gave up Gaelic and Welsh for English in the era of say 1850 - 1950.

I am not talking about borrowing an entire language. Indo-European community today is not one language with several pronunciations of same words. I am talking about borrowing from a language till that language (even if it was a construct in the first place, a lingua franca or a kind of esperanto) saturates your own, over several generations. And I think that lingua franca may well have borrowed from several different languages like esperanto and volapük, and it may well have been spelled in Hittite syllabic cuneiform writing the syllables of which were pronounced differently over the Empire and beyond, just like esperanto and latin have different pronunications for the letters. Or like "r" and "rs" have different pronunciations in Malmö, Jönköping, Stockholm and Helsingfors.
If it is only loan-words, yes it happend all the time. Not strange at all. Yes pronunications for the words in different indoeuropean languages are of course different, I always agreed with that.

Ireland, Scotland and Wales, werd all conqured and it was at least small emigration to it, so thats the reason.

Acording to Noah, how can Mount Ararat be urheimat?
Here is an indo-european language family tree. Hopefully you can click on it to get it big enough so you can see it. The Celtic language has to come from somewhere, and whereever it comes from it didn't just magically appear in Spain or Ireland. And the point is, Barry Cunliffe's arguments don't make any sense.

[link missing so far]
They do make sense as far as Insular Celtic grammar is concerned. No Indo-European languages except the Insular Celtic ones regularly place the verb first in each sentence, for instance.

That was to HS, now to IC, according to Genesis, after the Flood, all eight persons that were left of mankind came out of the ark on Ararat.

Back to HS, your family tree has Celtic closer to Italic than to Germanic and Baltoslavic. As far as passive/impersonal in -r is concerned, it is right, but as far as treatment of the sounds that are bh, dh, jh, gh in Sanskrit - they are b, d, g, gw in Celtic and Germanic and b, d, j, g in Baltic and Slavic. The family tree does not show where the branches start being attested and where they are mere reconstructions.
Hans what about the Sumerian Gilgamesh? He was supposedly a survivor of the great flood.
Than Gilgamesh would be another name for Noah.

Well Brittish Isles could of course be the place there protokeltic language developed to keltic for the keltic tribes, but other places feels more logic. I do not know what meaning of "regular put verb first". Is it always or mostly or often? For slavic often verb is first like; I speak russian=Govoriju ja rucckiy. It is the same in a question; Govoriju ja rucckiy?. I writings questionmarks show it, in conversation the tone.

In the Christian Antropology Europeans are Japhaits(after Japhaet), excluded Shemites and Hamnites of course, and maybe some more.

Hans-Georg Lundahl: You completly ignore the concept of others. For the survivours from ark some are bonded by marriage so it is all right. But next generation can not make children with eachother. It would be incestious hieresy. They have to have marriages with other folks from elsewhere. It is the same with off spring from Adam and Eve. They had to marriage with others. Unless incestious sins and hieresy.

But off course Adam and Eve were first, than others elsewhere.
Utnapishtim is another name for Noah. Gilgamesh is another name for presumably Nimrod. He visited Utnapishtim (or so he claims) and also claimed (either because Nimrod lied or because the story was mixed up with Henoch's story) that Utnapishtim was immortal, which Noah was not.

"For the survivours from ark some are bonded by marriage so it is all right. But next generation can not make children with eachother. It would be incestious hieresy. "

Noah's grandchildren married cousin to cousin. Marriages between cousins were not incestuous before the Decretum Gratiani (and are allowed in Sweden).

"It is the same with off spring from Adam and Eve. They had to marriage with others."

Marriage between brothers and sisters was not yet forbidden incest in the generation immediately after Adam and Eve.

Oh, one correction:

"For the survivours from ark some are bonded by marriage so it is all right."

All of them were. Noah and his wife, their sons and their daughters in law, three of each. Eight people in all.

As for "Govoriju ja rucckiy" I think Russian has free position of verb and subject pronoun. One could also say "Ja govoriju rucckiy" I presume.

In Gaelic the verb is always placed first in a main clause, unless it is the verb "is". And even "is" is first if subject is a pronoun. "Is mise Gaelig" = "I am a Gael".

Tha mi aig oibre = I am working
Tha thu aig oibre = you are working
Tha é fuar an diu = it is cold today.

[Mixing Scottish and Irish Gaelic a bit, I am afraid]

So, no Insular Celtic has a unique position of verbs, I do not know if it coincides with Basque, I do know it coincides with Semitic languages. As the easternmost group of Afro-Asiatic languages are traditionally called.

If there was some kind of trade community between Ireland and Hittite empire, there would have been a need of a lingua franca. But it can also have started in its Celtic developments on a smaller scale further off from Turkey, once the Hittites had failed.

Other unique thing about Insular Celtic: it conjugates the prepositions. Le = at or on or sth, Liom, leis ... at me, at you ...

[not sure whether at or on is best translation]
For russian, yes one can use it in other places. Mostly first. Yes I did not understood word "regular", but it seems to be always. There are a possibility to use a "linqua franca" but not have to. They could also learn eachothers languages. It is not more difficult. Or if the languages are close related, use ones own and understand the other.

Like I said about the survivors of the Ark, Some of them in bond of marriage..... It is correct because some had bond of parents-children and so on. And same persons had bond of parents-chlidren and marriage etc etc etc.

No cousins marriage is not allowed in Sweden. Although athorietes can permit it. I hope they never do. Anyhow it is a big genetic difference betwen a small minority have cousin marriage and all have it. No no no, marriage between brothers and sisters are always incest and a sin. And so between cousins. I indeed much more believe the Bishop, that I learn the Christian Antropology in person, than this depraved and degenerated version.
The Peopling of Europe is a book mainly about the genetic composition of Europe and how those peoples and their haplogroups and subclades came to be in Europe, but it also addresses language and the extent to which language is indicative of DNA ancestry or its spread. For instance, the Germanic languages are very odd in the Indo-European spectum, and their formation indicate a confluence of languages in the region of Southern Scandinavia, Denmark & northern Germany which occurred from about 100 BC to 200 AD. The author uses dna evidence to propose that the advent of the Norse/Germanic languages came about as a confluence of R1b Pro-Celts and the non-Indoeuropean speaking ancestors of the Finns which are Y-dna N and its derivatives, mostly.
Barry Cunliffs Book Facing the Ocean is a must read, fantastic book.
For my part, my deep ancestry indicates that I am an "Atlantean" closely resembling the old "Atlantic Modal Haplotype" though off by one at 439 (13, modal value of 12), and though I have the U106 SNP, my markers are more indicative of Gaul and the British Isles, with a closer affinity of values apparently residing in Northern France. I closely resemble both the Gaulish and Belgic modal haplotypes in (again off by one at 439) and I like to think I am an expatriate of the ancient Carnutes clan, upon whose holy places a cathedral would later be built, Notre Dame du Chartres.
The Bible makes no sense whatsoever. Why is anyone referring to it on this list? I thought we were talking about our Indo-European ancestors? That would be people who spoke an Indo-European language.
I tend to agree Helga.
We usually not refere to the Bible HS, but thanks to Hans-George Lundahl it has change. He has maybe a problem to have all the history about Indoeuropeans in his creatonist view. To know something about indoeuropeans it is better to read about Kurgan-theory by Marija Gimbutas, or similar theories, than to read this thread. Also i suggest to read "The Saga Of Aryan Race" by Porus Havewala, spelled something like that his name.
"There are a possibility to use a 'linqua franca' but not have to. They could also learn eachothers languages. It is not more difficult."

That is only real about relations between two languages. What if each nation has contact with three or four or ten or twenty communities speaking different languages than each other and one's own (realistic situation just after Babel, for instance)?

"No cousins marriage is not allowed in Sweden. Although athorietes can permit it."

As far as I know you are speaking about the relation between halfsiblings.

"No no no, marriage between brothers and sisters are always incest and a sin"

St Thomas Aquinas says this was not so for the first generation after Adam and Eve. Protestant Creationists have even gone further and said this was not so until after the Flood.

"And so between cousins"

That was not the case under the law of the Old Testament. I mean the Mosaic law binding Israelites under the last Covenant or Covenants before the Incarnation (depending on whether you consider there was a Davidic covenenant between the purely Mosaic one and the Christian one or you think David simply continued the covenant of Moses).

HS, re "I thought we were talking about our Indo-European ancestors?"

Lydians of Asia Minor spoke an Indo-European language. They descend from Sem according to Josephus.

Javan very certainly stands for Greeks who do speak Indo-European (but was it the pre-Indo-European people there or the Indo-European Achaean invaders who descend from Japhet's son or grandson Javan?)

For Gomer we do not know if they are Kappadocians or Galatians in Asia Minor, just that Galatians speak as the Gauls of Gaul.

For his descendants identified as Scythians we do not know if they spoke Aryan or Germanic or Ural-Altaic languages.

But if we believe in the Bible we also believe in these ancestries, and if so one possibility about Indo-European linguistic unity is that it was not a local language that simply spread further and further but an esperanto that failed.

[Gomer father to, acc. Josephus: Galatians, acc. to a Church father Galatians or Cappadocians, acc. to another Church Father: Cimmerians who were later called Scythians]

KS, re "For instance, the Germanic languages are very odd in the Indo-European spectum, and their formation indicate a confluence of languages in the region of Southern Scandinavia, Denmark & northern Germany which occurred from about 100 BC to 200 AD."

Indeed, 80% vocabulary without traceable Indo-European roots, plus some closerness to Finnish than to general Indo-European (no difference between Perfect and Imperfect - though that is also a Hettitic trait as far as I recall - and most Preterites formed by adding an ending between the unchanged stem and the personal endings).

I would add the fact that one version of the Indo-European soundsystem that can have been pre-Germanic before the sound shift results of combined Verner-Grimm is there were three series: p, t, k, qu; b, d, g, gw; v, dh, gh, ghw (spirantic and not aspirate). Not unlike the Finnish series pp, tt, kk; p, t, k; v, s, h/j/v.

For the strong believers in Indo-European unitarianism, what about the fact that though all IE langs have same words for foot and knee, it is not so for hand or arm (which are even same word in some langs, like Baltoslavic), not so for head (I am not sure if caput ties to haufuth - c-a-put vs h-au-futh, I am sure that galva/glav = kephale but not caput or heafod, then there is pen/ceann in Insular Celtic, which is again different), not so for leg. Stem oinos=unus, ein, oen does not correspond to Greek and in Baltoslavic it has odd beginnings - vienas, jeden).

It is also the words for close relatives seem to come from two different languages. Pater, mater, bhrater and dhughater from one, sunus and swesor from one or two other ones. Not to mention that Baltoslavic lacks pater: tevas, ojczec.

And in Baltoslavic there is blogas=bad vs blagu=good. A situation arising from common ancestor more likely or from miscommunication in a failed lingua franca more likely? I think the latter, as with daiwas and aswuras between Indians and Persians. Though there we would have religious reform during Zoroaster to reckon with as alternative explanation.

"We usually not refere to the Bible HS, but thanks to Hans-George Lundahl it has change. He has maybe a problem to have all the history about Indoeuropeans in his creatonist view."

You have a problem seeing my creationist views are recorded history (unless it were pseudo-history), while your Indo-European "history" is not recorded history at all not even falsely claiming to be such, but reconstruction. Only.

(I also spell Georg without any -e or -es, as is usual in both Swedish and German)
Maybe I comment more later if I think it worth the time. The history of indoeuropeans suits very well genetic and in archeology. Do not mix in finn-ugrian/uralic, that is invading asian language and not european. P, t, k is not pp, tt, kk. Yes there are from two groups of languages in european. (Proto)indoeuropean and older european of Basque.

Of Basque type.

And yes I have problem with theories who tried to troll away part of my heritage.
I did not say pp, tt, kk = p, t, k

I do say that:

pp:p = p:b (I am not sure that is not the way it is realised in Estonian)
Uralic languages from west of Ural have also inmix from the older european Basque type languages.
And I also do say, that Genesis is the heritage of all mankind, Grimm is a theory. As for prehistoric migrations, you cannot determine where a language came from.

Not to mention that our Swedish ancestors from the days of Olof Skötkonung or our Scanian ones from a century earlier have been believing Genesis but Grimm is a new kid on the block.

If West of Ural Uralic languages have similarities to Basque same way as certain Indo-European languages do (I have to belive you) that can also be explained by "failed lingua franca" theory.
The creatonist-theory include marriage betweem sibblings and between cousins. I say no thank you. Creatonist-theory are not even the traditional. It not even include the Christian Antropology.

[I later learned he was talking about anthropology or ethnology as per traditional Christian view, and Creationist beliefs are very certainly part of it, despite what his "Orthodox" Bishop may have told him. But I believed he was talking about XIXth C congruence theories between New Theories and Christian story. These were often constructed by MOdernists who did not believe the Flood was Universal.]
I do not know what "Christian Anthropology" you are talking about, I do know that you are a Puritan saying no thank you to truth because you cannot see that some rules had to be different during certain generations.

Christianity is however founded on Christ repairing what Adam did wrong, for all of us, so it is founded on Adam and Eve really being our first parents. It is also founded on Christ being God and hence all knowing, omniscient, and he obviously accepted there was such a thing as the "days of Noah" (see Gospel of St Matthew, chapter 24) whereas his disciple St Peter made clear that in the last days people by their own fault will deny there was a Flood.

This of course goes beyond the scope of this group, but it has implications of more or less directness in all matters of life and of knowledge, including this particular question. Did Celtic originate as a branch of Indo-European? Did Celtic originate as a lingua franca? Did Indo-European originate as a lingua franca?

As to Swedish law, here it is (Old Testament rather than Decretum Gratiani in this respect):

"3 § Äktenskap får ej ingås mellan dem som är i rätt upp- och nedstigande släktskap med varandra eller som är helsyskon.
Halvsyskon får ej ingå äktenskap med varandra utan tillstånd av regeringen eller myndighet som regeringen bestämmer. Lag (1975:845)."

Giftermålsbalk (1920:405)
[jag citerade ur 2 kap. Om hinder mot äktenskap]

I am happy you are against cousin marriages, a Catholic Christian should be so thanks to Decretum Gratiani, but I am less happy you try to make out your values - even good ones - as identic to our national law and therefore indebted especially to our nation (and its Indo-European origins) rather than to Christ and Christianity of the Catholic Church.

Here is an online source for Decretum Gratiani as to what it is:

Encyclopedia Britannica : Gratian’s Decretum

And here is a diagram of the kind of common ancestry which according to Decretum Gratiani excludes the right for a man and a woman to marry each other:
If someone could find the same diagram in better resolution with the latin names for relatives?

[otherwise you can count the circles on the lines even on that diagram – the lowest ones are about children and grandchildren usually]
I know your name is Hans-Georg Lundahl, although I forget how to spell it sometimes. My own name has had different forms here; Ingmar, Ingemar, Igmar, Ingram etc. But I know who they mean.

Oh so now you want to give away the skythians to the Uralians to. From us indoeuropean. No doubt at all that the skythians were indoeuropean. They were offsprings from the Kurgans. All over the plains are the acheological evidence, including genetic tests. Among them the Red Hair Mommies(something like that in spelling) of China. All the east Indoeuropean peoples; Russians, Ukranians, Iranians etc have diamond-shaped faces, rather high cheek boons and bigger eyes. Asians might have high cheek boons but very small eyes. R1a is dominating here, for eastslavs, iranians and bharat-indians of european type, also found here R2, R1b and I. All this mostly conected to indoeuropeans. Also E of course. All this point out indoeuropean heritage. Not uralian-mongoloid or altai-mongoloid. Today a lot of the plains between is dominating by Turks, but they are considered by some to be in the Europeid, and by some of blended race. So also in the other indoeuropean people. The dominating Y-haplogroups are R1b, I2, I1, R1a and E. All european. Only exeption is N, who are not indoeuropean and more asian. Here the link again, I not found your short one. Read also the text.

The Baltic-Finnish languages are more alike the samojedish and jakutish languagen than indoeuropean and Basque languages. Therefore it is Uralian languages. If you hear Basque language it sounds a bit similar to keltic languages, although it is not. But it is European. Even than I have discussed about the europeans with Conservative Orthodox Bishops and priests, they never had trolled away the indoeuropeans. Of cours they mores have a view of Jafaits, and the Jafaits are the Europeans acording to the Christian Antropology(established 200-500 AD), Shemites etc excluded. This Priests and Bishops also saw it genetic as well as culture heritage.

There are many old description found to determine what language there is. Resently I read here, I think that Linear A from Kreta is an indoeuropean language. Also are tocharian as well as Skythian identified as indoeuropean. So also sanskrit and avesta.

I do not even know why you even mentioned the swedish marriage law. [sic!] It was not relevant at all. [sic!] No you want to dishonour our fatherland to post that incest law. I remember I was told than I was little that cousin marriage was forbidden. It might be before 1975, so I hope and presume it was forbidden than. Do not check it up, it is enough of dishonour for our fatherland. That perversion and even wurse it is not needed in the concept of others. There Adams blood-line always have marriage with others. That I have also been told is in the Christian Antropology. Also it the logical thing. Actualy Hans-Georg Lundahl, I will defriend you at facebook becouse of the dishonouring our fatherland and this depraveted and degenerated ideas.

Actualy there are written history about Indoeuropeans. In old iranian text in avesta, and the Veda books in sanskrit.
"Oh so now you want to give away the skythians to the Uralians to. From us indoeuropean. No doubt at all that the skythians were indoeuropean."

Scythians were a people and not the very nicest one.

Indoeuropeans and Uralians are language users - and the information we get from the Scythian's neighbours, I am not sure it is enough to determine which of these languages they used.

However, I think Uralian and Semitic grammar met when Indo-European was invented, unless it was an act of God at Babel to put these similarities between IE and two different other languages (as they would have been then if really descending from proto-langs).

Verb system of IE: Semitic trait is ablautbetween different stem forms of verb and in most groups a difference between past completed and past ongoing (Germanic and perhaps Anatolian branches are so far closer to Fenno-Ugrian, except English imported it from French and spread it to other tenses than past, as did Welsh too): Fenno-Ugrian trait is the personal endings. Plus (Modern) Persian and Germanic have a simple past with addition of a simle suffix, without changing the stem (Germanic exception, strong verbs, Persian exception the verb "to be").

My and your scenarios are different to start with. In my scenario Uralic languages are not necessarily from the far East. Rather, Scythians or Sarmatians (some of which left the Kurgans [behind for us]) would have been implied in two lingua franca projects, IE spreading mainly westward, Ural-Altaic spreading mainly eastward.

"Even than I have discussed about the europeans with Conservative Orthodox Bishops and priests, they never had trolled away the indoeuropeans."

Perhaps they are very class conscious about academic consensus? Perhaps they take academic consensus for something in its level as reassuring as episcopal consensus in the Church in theology?

Javan is ancestor of Greek speakers today. Not sure if it means primarily "Pelasgians" or pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece or Achaeans, ie IE invaders. Lud is ancestor of Lydians in Asia Minor. Het is ancestor of Hittites in Asia Minor, in all probability (equally not sure if that means pre-IE Hatti or IE invaders). Now, Het is from Ham, Lud is from Sem and Javan is from Japheth. Obviously their descendants immediately spoke some kind of Hebrew up to Tower of Babel, and obviously their descendants when God smote them with confusion spoke different languages. From then on we have a few options:

  • a) Javan and Lud and Het all spoke different languages, but God had given them resemblances by "deriving" them from a Proto-language never spoken, only imagined by God. A bit like when proto-Eldarin was never spoken but only imagined by Tolkien. Then Tolkien worked out Quenya and Sindarin from proto-Eldarin, at least technically. If he invented a word in Q[uenya], he "derived it backwards" to Proto-Eldarin and then forwards to Sindarin to get a Sindarin cognate. So also God with such early and identified IE speakers.

  • b) Of Javan, Lud and Het some acually gave up their languages. But even so, Persians and Scythians descend from other branches of Noah's family. I mean, even so, since theoretically the original language of Javanites could have been that of Pelasgians and the original one of Het's children that of Hatti, both of which were with clear probabilities invaded by IE (unless the invaders were indigenous élitist wannabees) - but we would still have Persia and Lydia without foreign invasion speaking "related" languages which poses the question whether they belong under heading a or c or whether one of them gave its language up for another reason.

  • c)Javan, Lud and Het came to speak out related languages because they tried to resume the language unity before Babel. I e, Indo-European is a failed esperanto. If you have any alternatives (apart from denying Biblical History which the Christian anthropology of 2:d to 5:th Centuries certainly would not), do give them.

"I remember I was told than I was little that cousin marriage was forbidden. It might be before 1975, so I hope and presume it was forbidden than."

Sorry, you were told it was forbidden, but you did not look it up. Fact its, it was not then and is not now. It has not been so probably since either Charles IX (who with Calvinist leanings returned to some Old Testament features of law, he also introduced death penalty for disobeying or insulting fathers, which was later abolished) or some XIX C parliamentarians who said "we can't forbid it if the Bible didn't".

Sorry if this dishonours our fatherland, but fact remains our fatherland was dishonoured by Gustav Wasa, Laurentius Petri, Olaus Petri and their pals who cut us off from Catholic Church and Civilisation.

It is a credit to your family they think cousin marriage is forbidden, but it is not the merit of the Swedish state. Also, it was not forbidden among the grandchildren of Noah or among Israelites up to Jesus. It was not forbidden among the grandchildren of Adam. And sibling marriage was not forbidden among the children of Adam, unless you would add that in that generation only twin sisters counted as sisters, it would have been perhaps incest to marry the twin sister.

"Resently I read here, I think that Linear A from Kreta is an indoeuropean language."

Not sure. Linear B from Mycenae is Indo-European Greek, that is sure.

"Actualy there are written history about Indoeuropeans. In old iranian text in avesta, and the Veda books in sanskrit."

Avesta is not a history about Indo-Europeans, but about Persians. Veda is not a history about Indo-Europeans but about Hindoos. Both of them are according to the "common ancestor" theory written well after the split between Persian and Indian languages. Which in turn in the standard version is after the split of Aryan from either other Satem languages or from Greek and Armenian. So, no, we do not have any written history about those splits immediately leading away from supposed proto-indo-european language.

And Hittite is even older than Veda and Avesta, but that is not either a histroy of earliest Indo-Europeans before the split according to the "common ancestor theory".

According to my theory of "failed lingua franca" Hittite documents could be the story of peoples trying to invent it. but otherwise Hittite tablets from Hattusa are not written history about earlist IE speakers either, but about Hittites and their neighbours (including Lydians and Achaeans, btw).

It is however sure that Linear A from Kreta is not Greek.

It is also sure that Tocharian, though Indo-European, is not ancient. It is stranded, it is a Centum language east of the Satem languages, but the texts in either variety are recent. Buddhist in fact.
HGL, later addition:
IC, according to this article the prohibition against cousin marriage was no more even preliminary from 1845:

Förbindelsepost - Förbjudna led 649-650 (Nordisk familjebok / 1800-talsutgåvan. 5. Folkvisor - Grimnesmål)
Agree! A great dishonour for Sweden was reformation.

For the Conservative Orthodox Bishops and Priests, also Christian Anthropology: Off course they are not antichristian and probobly not anticreatonist either. But they do not deny us our heritage, that apparently creatonism does. Shemites are from Shem and Hamnites from Ham. All the Europeids from Japhaet and they are called Japhaits. This includes also all Iranians and Skythians and Europeid-Indians. And all other branches of indoeuropeans, also older protoeuropeans. Japhaits are indoeuropeans and other older branches of Europeans, not Uralians. There are more uralic languages east of Ural and more subclads N Y-Haplogroup. It shows the origin of east of Ural.

Uralians spoke and spread uralic, Indoeuropeans spoke and spread indoeuropean, that is so. I completly trust the lingvistics who has classified the uralic to be uralic and so on.

Actualy the Veda-books are about the Aryans/Indoeuropeans and not only about Hindos. They spoke about conquest and migration from the plains in northwest , from Indhia. Also old Iranian tradition talks about that. Relevant books are The Arctic Home In Vedas By Bal Tilak and the Saga Of The Aryan Race by Porus Homi Havewala.
My problem with your theory is not that you say Europeans are from Japhet. They are usually. My problem is you say Finns are not from Japhet.

And this is my creationist take, not the take of "creationism" as a movement over all.

As far as I can see, Togorma could be ancestor of Finns, Turks, Germans, Balts or Slavs. I can be no more precise than that. Or he could be ancestor of more than one of these groups.

As for linguistic classification, I do not deny them. I am asking if they are classifications similar to "Romance languages" or similar to "Balkan languages" or similar to "Bantu languages".

Or I am not asking. The solution "similar to Romance languages" is that of Classic Indoeuropeanism, like Grimm or Bopp. Romance languages have a common ancestor in Latin.

The solution "similar to Balkan languages" means languages without common ancestry borrow not just words but structure from each other. It was Trubetskoj's take on IE unity. In the Balkans both Bulgarian and Romanian have definite article on end of substantive nouns rather than before the noun or before the adjective of the noun. Both Romanian and Greek have unified the Genitive and Dative cases.

On Baltic East and South coasts both Finnish and Estonian on the one hand, both Baltic and Slavic on the other hand (Baltic like Lithuanian or Latvian, Slavic like Russian and Polish and Bielorussian use a partitive genitive (in Finnish actually another case than genitive, but IE langs do not have the disctinction) in some cases where IE languages would typically have nominative or accusative.

Finnish, German and Slavic, but not Lithuanian have one way each of forming the past. In Slavic it applies to two different stems of the verb, but the stems take the same ending (-al, -il, yl, typically in masculine singular).

Danish dialects close to Germany have definite article before the noun "ae haest" (das Pferd, the horse) where other Danish dialects have it glued onto after the noun "haesten", "hesten" ... and Finnish, Polish Russian and Lithuanian all lack the possibility of putting a definite article before the noun.

The solution that IE is a classification like "Balkan languages" is thus the position of Trubetskoj.

Mine is they are at first something close to Medieval Latin in Europe or Swahili in Africa. Note that Swahili breaks down into different Bantu languages and that Medieval Latin influences as well as is influenced by all Western European languages.

Not denying partial truths in Trubetskoj's or Grimm-Verner-Bopp's positions.

Note also, repeating this for convenience, that written Swedish is in pronunciation notably of R initially, intervocalically and finally, and in combination with a following dental at least four languages - Malmö, Jönköping, Stockholm and Åbo/Helsingfors all have different ways of pronouncing this.

In the Swedish case Rs that were originally pronounced exactly the same have developed into the different pronunciations more often than borrowed Rs have adapted to them. IN the IE case it may - if I am right - have been the reverse.

I think Indhia in the NW is the Hindus valley, so if there are Vedic books about migration from the North (this is not the case for Mahabharata, which is anyway post-Vedic sanskrit, I think it may be distorted memories from pre-flood, and I think Indians descend from Ham, whose wife might have been Cainite or of Nephelim stock partly), these are not a history of leaving the Kurgans east while others left it Northward to us.

But I would not over much trust Hindoo scholars seeking confirmation of modern things in their ancient books. Have you heard how von Däniken refers to Vimanas as spaceships and says there is an ancient Vedic text about how to build them? Well, the text might have been in ancient Vedic Sanskrit, but it was "channelled" (if you have heard of such magical practises) to a Hindoo living in early XXth C., unless the translator to English only invented the original.

Appendix for non-Swedes on R.

Malmö: both R in "röra" and both in "rörs" = French R, and S in "rörs" heard as a separate letter.

Åbo and Helsingfors (which it is to half the population, other half saying Helsinki), same as Malmö except all Rs are Italian Rs and not French.

Stockholm: both R in "röra" and first R in "rörs" = Italian R. RS in "rörs" = SH.

Jönköping: first R in both "röra" and "rörs" = French R. Second R in "röra" = Italian R. RS in "rörs" = SH.

In Malmö SH per se does not exist. In Helsinki SH is for the spelling SJ, STJ, SKJ, SK before slender vowels - which all over Sweden as opposed to Finland have a thicker pronunciation, something between SH and Scottish WH.

Geneticaly Baltic-Finns are 75-90% European/Japhaits, mostly protoeuropean and some indoeuropean. Than 10-25% asian. Also Volga-finns as well as Komi and Sami are more European than asian. Hungarians just a few procent asian. Although their languge are of asian origin, with some inmix of protoeuropean language(none-indoeuropean). Geneticaly wrong language but in context of conquer and migration it works. Uralian language are uralian nothing else. I know myself, exept norse languages, also english, german, russian, kroatian, serbian and little polish. I sure recognise more in all this languages with eachother than in finnish, hungarian, sami etc. In sound, grammar and words. So clearly indoeuropean makes a difference.

No nothing about that in Mahabarata. It is all in Rigveda, I think. But there is clearly this conection with Kurgans, and the plains, horses waggons, soma etc. Clearly indoeuropean. The Europeid-Indians are sure European/Japhaits and indoeuropean. Dravidian-Indian are sure Hamnites. Today some blending of course. In nothern Indhia, and a bit in higher castes, more indoeuropean; and in south, and a bit in lower castes more dravidian.
Horses and waggons were there after supposed Urheim in Kurgans. They were there in Hittites and in Mycenae.

Now, Indo-European early speakers are not all from Japheth. Lydians in Asia Minor are from Lud, descending from Shem, and so are Bactrians (early Afghans, presumably speaking an Aryan language).

As to slit eyes and yellow skin, what we usually think of as Asian, we do not know from what early nation they descend. Perhaps from many of the 70, perhaps from one unknown.

Romans descend from many nations coalescing, French are a branch off of Romans as well as of Basques, pertinacious Celts, Franks (who were the aristocracy and gave the name).

Americans also are both branch off and mixture, could also be the case with Chinamen, Mongols, Lapps and Red Indians.

And I was not, once again, saying Indoeuropean was not a linguistic group. I was saying the explanations for such are not limited to only common linguistic ancestor (like for Romance languages). There are also Sprachbund (like for Balkanic, or like for Medieval Latin along with West European langs) and borrowing extensively from a Lingua franca (such as Medieval Latin was in Europe or Bantu languages, especially Swahili in Africa).

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Let us bury the equation "Indo-European = Japhetic"

As to Fenno-Ugrians European or Asiatic, whatever that means ultimately, some say Etruscan words have been identifed as very old spelling of Hungarian. But also, the population of Toscana (and vicinity) has been identied as odd by Cavalli-Sforza.

PS to the debate: if you get a chance to read Cunliffe's book, do so!/HGL

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire