In this part we start off still debating whether Scythians, earlier Cimmerians, presumably from Gomer according to some Church Father, were speaking a Fenno-Ugrian or an Indo-European language and IC is giving a close up to racial evidence, often beyond me. We end with me presenting my Lithuania blog, a C Course Essay in which I start off marking myself as a Christian by accepting the Christian Anthropology, since he seemed to think I was rejecting Tradition. First speech is IC's
- 1. The first masters of the european plains were the indoeuropeans. From north of Black Sea to Ural. 2.The Hungarians are racialy blending mostly of Europeid race with 5-8% Mongoloid race. Subraces; alpine, osteuropean, nordic and dinaric, mostly the first two. Than one Mongoloid subrace. 3. Once again, the link was antieuropean because it told that altaic folks were masters of the european plains and not indoeuropeans. The Uralic group is not the Altaic either. All that is incorrect. Because of the mommies of China with european appierence, who were very early. Also the origin of the Europeid folks of Iran/Ariana and Indhia/Aryavat proofs that. 4. Skythians were also indoeuropeans because also of genetics and the appierence who old historians had written, that they were tall, pale skin, blue eyed and blond or bright brown or reddish hair. 5. Kroatians, Serbians etc are not living in north and they anyhow say "hleb". Also skythians and slavs are not easy to seperate in the early history. It seems that it might be the same in early time. 6. Noone can expect that the same word is used in every indoeuropean language for everything, it is just reddicolous. Sometimes is one indoeuropean root used sometimes another, and sometimes a pre-indoeuropean european word is in use. 7. It depends on the definition of language. For indoeuropean language could be seen, like a language with a very larg difference between dialects, or it could be seen like many close related languages. I myself believe more the second one. 8. The link of Baltic-Finns etc with Asiatic -Uralians has many scientists established including Mathias Kastrén. But like I wrote before it is just matter of some procent asiatic. But the languages are Uralic, in the concept of conquer and migration. Lingvistics have define this languages like finn-ugrian/uralian and that is asian and not european. Uralian languages are not similar to the none-indoeuropean european Basque language. 9. The Sumerians are Europeid-Caucasoid and nothing else. They have european appierence and many of their statues have blue eyes. 10. I simply suggest that anyone who are against indoeuropeans, this group is about indoeuropeans, might leave the group and start or join, a altaic group, or an uralian group.
- I was under the impression that the hungarians were originally a Scythian desended race and later Huns?
- It is a big difference between hungarians, magyars and uralians. Hungarians of today have only 5-8% genetic heritage frome asian-uralians. The hungarians have most from slavic-skythians, then german-norse, then keltic. Already the magyars were more slavic-skythian than asian-uralian. The appierence of skythians; mostly blue/grey/green eyes and blond-brightbrown or reddish hair; tells me not asian. The skythian were indoeuropeans speaking indoeuropean, close related to iranian and early slavic. Huns were a federation of altai-asians, skythians and even some gothians. The name Attila is fro gothian language, meaning little father. Because of the early indoeuropean expansion there even were a small inmix of that in altai-asians but not in uralians east of Ural.
- Right so not wrong with the Scythians and very very wrong with the Huns.
- In somehow you were right, just not see the hungarians as asians. Only some procent.
- "Because of the mommies of China with european appierence, who were very early."
Could they have looks a bit like Hungarians, perhaps? Or have had?
My point is we do not know that Lapps or Hungarians came from Asia. We know they share some genes with East Asiatics. The latter could be descendants of Fenno-Ugrian Europeans.
"1. The first masters of the european plains were the indoeuropeans. From north of Black Sea to Ural"
"3. Once again, the link was antieuropean because it told that altaic folks were masters of the european plains and not indoeuropeans."
That is defining Europe racially more than culturally or ethnically. No European people is purely one race. Swedes are pretty much Nordic race type, but there is East Baltic from Finland, there is also Alpine race type or similar. Germans have Alpine as well as Nordic and East Baltic. Croats and Slovenes Dinaric as well as Alpine. I do not see why an Alpine Austrian should have more in common with an Alpine Croat than with a Nordic Austrian. I do not see why an Alpine Croat should have more in common with an Alpine Austrian than with a Dinaric Croat. And these are still two nations without enmities, but language is more important than race type.
"4. Skythians were also indoeuropeans because also of genetics and the appierence who old historians had written, that they were tall, pale skin, blue eyed and blond or bright brown or reddish hair."
That proves nothing about their language. Indoeuropeans are not a race, but a language group.
"5. Kroatians, Serbians etc are not living in north and they anyhow say 'hleb'."
Because words spread where there is a common tongue. And because they moved from the North. Serbians are originally same tribe as Sorbians in Lausitz (NE parts of Germany).
"Also skythians and slavs are not easy to seperate in the early history."
Whether Slavs are Scythians or Sarmatians is not clear. Whether Scytians are Slavs or Fenno-Ugrians is not clear. That was my point. I can even not exclude them from having spoken an Aryan language like those of India, Persia, Bactria ... or pre-Greek Creta (presumably).
The anthropology of Josephus and of Church Fathers does not say who the Chinamen and Mongols come from. They could be from the Scythians, especially considering the Europois looking mummies in China.
"6. Noone can expect that the same word is used in every indoeuropean language for everything, it is just reddicolous."
My point is we have sometimes very different words for very key concepts.
"Sometimes is one indoeuropean root used sometimes another, and sometimes a pre-indoeuropean european word is in use."
I agree. But a pre-indoeuropean word implies speakers spoke something before they spoke indo-european. Which is very much part of my point. Namely that Indo-European proto-language did not spread over Europe as English spread over North America.
"7. It depends on the definition of language. For indoeuropean language could be seen, like a language with a very larg difference between dialects, or it could be seen like many close related languages. I myself believe more the second one."
You avoid the proper question: how did the languages become closely related?
By division from an earlier single language? Or by coalescence from earlier same languages earlier on less related?
"Lingvistics have define this languages like finn-ugrian/uralian and that is asian and not european."
Fins are Europeans. Lapps are Europeans. Hungarians are Europeans. Estonians are Europeans. Etruscans are Europeans.
However, Mordvins and Samoyeds are Siberians Asiatics, as far as I know.
My point is science cannot conclusively pinpoint where a language came from by looking at urns and burial places that lack writing.
"Uralian languages are not similar to the none-indoeuropean european Basque language."
I neither said they were nor implied they were. If you ask me whom Finno-Ugrians descend from, I might guess Gomer via Scythians. If you ask me where Basques came from, I might guess the original language of Tarsis. But that could also be Ligurian or something. Nothing implies a people in SW Europe ought to have same origin as a people in NE Europe.
"10. I simply suggest that anyone who are against indoeuropeans, this group is about indoeuropeans, might leave the group and start or join, a altaic group, or an uralian group."
I am not against Indo-Europeans. As a speaker of Swedish and German from childhood and a student of English, French, Latin, and less Greek and even less Balto-Slavic, I am as Indo-Euopean as you can get. OK, Germanic is not the purest Indo-European language there is.
BUT I am against confounding Indo-European languages with a supposed Indo-European race which supposedly shared with Basques yes but somehow with Finno-Ugrians no the original possession of European lands in times when the dwellers did not record their language.
I have a problem when you suggest that I as a Christian Swede have more in common - or when at least you appear to be saying and would have been said if you had thought about your words and spoken the same - with very Barbarian Scythians than with Christian Fins. Because the language community is supposed to be also a racial continuity.
In my essay on Lithuania, I spent some time on pre-Christian Lithuania. It was a C-course essay exam at Lund (usually implies third term of studies in one of two parallel subjects).
I defined "nation" in two steps: a) there are the sons or rather grandsons and greatgrandsons of Noah which lead to the original 70 or 72 nations; b) there are split-offs and mergers from there on. I defined "Indo-European nation" as being 1) a "nation" (see a), and 2) sharing certain characteristics of linguistics, commonly but not always attributed to a supposed Proto-Indo-European language which has not survived (if the reconstructions are correct and there was one, the reconstructions give a language that has not survived), and which is therefore dubious.
THEN I go on to define the Lithuanians and Baltic differences. First it is North Indo-European and Satem. Where South has bh, phi, f-/-b- or even h-/-b- (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin), North has b or b/v. Where Centum languages say 100 as C-ead, C-ant, C-entum, H-undred, he-K-aton, Satem languages have S-atem, S-to, SH-imtas. Second it is far from Celtic in the North if you take phonetic trait after phonetic trait, but phonetically between Germanic and Slavonic. Third, if you go from phonetic correspondences in corresponding words to non-corresponding vocabulary choices, as well as grammar, it is clearly closer to Slavonic than to Germanic.
When discussing a pre-modern linguistics explanation of the language, if I did so, I may have stated that if it is attributed to a mixture of Greek and Latin, there is something to say for it on the Morphological level, but it points as clearly or as little clearly back to Indo-European. On the other hand, Balto-Slavic shares with Greek the same word for "head." Greek Attic-Ionic kephalé = Doric kaphala, I presume. Which would in Macedonian (rememner "Bilippos") be gabala, which would have only metathesis, spirantisation and syncope before a form identic to Lithuanian galva appears.
Here is a link to my essay, partly Swedish, partly English:
Litaven : Prolog: Litavens kulturhistoria, uppsats - intro & innehåll
Or rather to its prologue. Here is the relevant first part of the essay:
Litaven : Litavisk kulturhistoria, problem 1
As you might see on the link, I last updated the blog in early 2009 before returning from Orthodoxy to TRaditional Catholicism. But I wrote the essay before that, as a Traditional Catholic Sedisvacantist in 2003.