Last part up to now for debate between IC and me. He admits my position is not just shared by politically correct communists but also by "altaic chauvinists" who are presumably not PC. Later I end up asking him to give Patristic back-up for his positions.
- IC
- 1. The Indoeuropeans of the plains are proven. For example dominant y-haplogroups of R1a+R1b, who also are found by all indoeuropeans, even iranians and europeid-indians. Also the corded ware/ battle axe people were this. They had especialy R1a acording also to archoelogy. Other groups had R1b dominating. No race but recogniceble dna markers and appierence 2. No the "redhair mommies" of China not look like Hungarians, they were not invented yet. The indoeuropeans were, and they looked like them. 3: The Indoeuropeans spread out indoeuropean languages. It would be stupid to spread out somone else languages. 4. The uralians were of mongoloid race and came from east of ural, because most variants of bouth uralic languages and variants of y-haplogroup N. 4. The skythians appierence proves that they are indoeuropean and not asian-mongoloid. That is very simple to see. 5. Yes Samis, Baltic-finns, Volga-finns, Hungarians and even Komi are europeans. They are that thanks to their european and indoeuropean ancestors, not because of their Uralian-mongoloid ancestors. But the uralian heritage are just a minority, for Baltic-finns just 10-25%. For this uralic speakers, indoeuropean heritage also are rather small, exept for hungarians, who it is rather large, much R1a. 6. Yes Serbians came from the Sorbians, but before that they came from the are just north of Black Sea, and maybe even from Afganistan. The Kroats also came from north of Black Sea, and maybe from Arianna/Iran. 7. Total agree, for an example an alpine german has more in common with a nordic german than with an alpine italian, but not mostly by language, but in ethnos. Ethnos are created in a context of genetic heritage, but put together of kinsfolk. Fore example, my genetic test showed that most of my kinsfolk were swedish, therfore I belong to the swedish ethnos. Ethnos are indeed more important than subraces. Nationality and nation are, ethnos, culture and social structure, than in culture language and religion. 8. Well many european folks are, at least very nearly, of only one race, but several subraces. 9. Actualy when the skythians were there, also the Finns were heathens. What I know you are all of swedish ethnos, and than I think you are more similar to finns than to skythians. For etnical Swedes, we have 65-70% heritage from the first tribes who came to the Nordic-Baltic area, dominating Y-haplogroup I1. For us the rest of 30-35% are in this order indoeuropeans(battleaxe-people R1a + later R1b people), than farming-people of y-haplogroup E(none-indoeuropean european) some procent only, and very little less one procent uralian. For Baltic-Finns this uralian are 10-25%, indoeuropean 10-20%, farming-people a couple of procent, and than the rest about same amount like etnical swedes the Nordic-Baltic europeans. Other norse folks have similar numbers. I do not know the numbers for Skythians, but I am sure that they not descended from Nordic-Baltic europeans. 10. There indoeuropean languages/language came from: I have not total decided what my view there, but I think it developed natural from the tribes than they became indoeuropeans, so from older european languages.
- HGL
- [Not answering all ten points, only a few.]
"3: The Indoeuropeans spread out indoeuropean languages. It would be stupid to spread out somone else languages."
Would it? Hindi is not the local language of Bombay or of Pondichéry and yet people there are spreading it. Like a lingua franca.
1 - have to look into the proof, do not find a ready refutation yet. My point rested most on my answer to your point three. - IC
- To much details. I mean it would be stupid for indoeuropeans to spread out african and asian languages.
All indoeuropean have high y-haplogroup R1 (R1a and/or R1b). High R1 have also Hugarians( etnic indoeuropean but uralic language) and some Turkmen folks (etnic blending of indoeuropean and altaic- asians, racaialy cosidered mixrace Europeid and Mongoloid, or just Europeid)
And yes also Basques have highR1. - BSt
- ok let me jump in... yes we say hleb for bread, but across the river drina term "kruh" is more common...synonimes are abundant in serbo/croatian because many languages left their mark in ours so we have at least several words describing same thing... as for hungarians i am not a genetic scientist but having spent many years in vojvodina (part of the panonian plane where we live with romanians and hungarians) i can tell you this... hungarians come in two types blonde (slavic origin or germanic) and dark haired with olive tan (obviously asiatic) add to that all that comes between... romanians pretty much the same, only in romanians case many tsigoynern present themselves as romanians and they are not... so hungarians are huns mostly by adopted language...
- HGL
- "To much details. I mean it would be stupid for indoeuropeans to spread out african and asian languages.
OK, would it be stupid if these were back then NOT african or asian? I mean for the Indo-Europeans who were really European. Sumerians and perhaps Aryans are Asiatics, not East Asiatics but mid Asiatics.
And the problem is that you consider only your own scenario. "Indo-Europeans were first in one corner of Europe, Proto-Europeans in another corner or even most of Europe, Uralic language speakers were first in parts of Asia" ... but none of these theories are actually written documented facts.
Unless they can be indirectly documented by genetics. And there I would not only know what type of a specific marker is predominant in what population, but rather what lack of it there is in other ones.
BSt, thank you for agreeing on two things - languages can be spoken by very different races at same time and they can change word across a river.
Actually a word like hlaf / laib does not mean just bread, it means loaf - a bread as it is from the oven, without cutting or breaking. Bread is the more general term but is same as fractum - broken. As for Lithuanian the word is duonas - given or gift.
Such are the facts that make it difficult to make sure a certain population were speakers of a certain language and how much a language community has staid united or the reverse. Before its forms are written, that is.
Meaning we can guess, and if my guess seems to fit better with Holy Bible I am taking it.
"2. No the "redhair mommies" of China not look like Hungarians, they were not invented yet. The indoeuropeans were, and they looked like them."
a) Hungarians can look like Indo-Europeans, like IC just said;
b) we do not know when Hungarians were invented. - IC
- 1. There are the genetic proofs of the indoeuropeans. Indeed Sumerians and indo-aryans are european. They ethnical and racial europeans. So also all europeans. 2. I have considered other alternatives earlier in my life, but I have abandoned them than my knowledges have increased. 3. The Hungarians were invented with the state of Hungary was established. 4. Like I had said all the time a new language can established in context of conquer and migration. Noone will replace their own language with a "lingua franca". They will use it parallell with eachother. With some loan-words of course.
- BSt
- somebody mentioned lužčki srbi sorabs from lausitz... yes they are the remains of the part of the tribe called crveni srbi = red serbs, that means the ones who came from the west avoiding carpathian mountains while moving from planes below caucasian mountains to where we are now... the other part is known as beli srbi = white serbs. the ones that came from the east over the carphatian mountains... white is east because that is the colour of the sunlight where the sun rises and red on the west because that is the colour of the skies where sun sets... the west...
- HGL
- ah, thank you, I did not know, BSt
1 There are the genetic proofs of the indoeuropeans."
You mean I presume there are genetic proofs of a race type now usually speaking IE languages?
"Indeed Sumerians and indo-aryans are european."
Sumerian language seems closer to Fenno-Ugrian than to Indo-European, though. So, are Fenno-Ugrians Europeans now?
If so the Kurgan people could well have been Europeans but speaking Fenno-Ugrian, as Alinei suggested.
"3. The Hungarians were invented with the state of Hungary was established."
Not true. By Hungarians we usually mean speakers of Hungarian language who were there well before Arpad and St Stephen. St Wolfgang went to a failed mission to them.
And obviously there were Fins before Finland was invented either as independent in 1917 or even as a Swedish and later Russian region after the Swedish crusades.
There were Fins before Adils went to a pagan conquest to Finland as originally meantby the word (Åbo-land).
"Noone will replace their own language with a 'lingua franca'. They will use it parallell with eachother. With some loan-words of course."
The question is how long saturation (over generations) it takes before one's own language resembles the lingua franca to the extant that a XIX C linguist would conclude in favour of a common ancestor language even if there was none.
And obviously a lingua franca can be spoken as a court language by people aspiring to international connexions, and court languages tend to spread to the people. - IC
- 1. Europeids have european markers and european appierence. Clearly Europeans with high average of y-haplogroup R1 are indoeuropeans. 2. Again and again.... Baltic-Finns are 10-25% Uralian-Asian-Mongoloid, and they are 75-90% European-Europeid( none-indoeuropean european + indoeuropean). 3. Sumerians were european-europeid (markers and appierence). And no sumerian do not look similar to uralian. 4. Hungarians is the nationality including; Magyars, Germans etc. Magyars is the tribe of blending Uralians and Skythians, of unknown age. The finns of course are very old, I have not said anything else. 5. Although hundreds of years and for some even over thousend, use of latin as "lingua franka", we do not all speak latin. We speak swedish, german etc.
This denying of indoeuropean heritage I only seen from some very political correct people, and some altaic chauvinists. - HGL
- "1. Europeids have european markers and european appierence. Clearly Europeans with high average of y-haplogroup R1 are indoeuropeans."
Thank you for saying Europeids and not Indo-Europeans this time!
[left his #2 unanswered]
"3. Sumerians were european-europeid (markers and appierence). And no sumerian do not look similar to uralian."
Their speech does, as well as to Altaic, since it is said to have had "Turanising word order".
"4. Hungarians is the nationality including; Magyars, Germans etc. Magyars is the tribe of blending Uralians and Skythians, of unknown age. The finns of course are very old, I have not said anything else."
I obviously used Hungarians as the more usual name (outside Hungarian) for Magyars. As a parallel to Fins rather than to Finlanders.
" 5. Although hundreds of years and for some even over thousend, use of latin as "lingua franka", we do not all speak latin. We speak swedish, german etc."
Inexact. Germanic had two tenses. Modern Germanic languages imitate Latin's and Romance languages system so as to have - by use of auxiliary verbs - eight tenses (English has sixteen). Also, these languages all have Consecutio temporum as Latin had and as Greek and Slavonic have not.
Not to mention we have borrowed even an ending from Latin: -are.
So, Swedish and German are influenced by the former lingua franca, that is why they are closer to Romance than to Slavonic. (apart from being Centum) - IC
- 1. In my opinion sumerian language is more similar to shemite languages and some to indoeuropean than to altaic. So I do not agree to "Turanising word order". 2. Sometimes I also uses "Finns" for nationality. Although mostly and in this thread I use Finns for the ethnos, and not for the finlandic-Swedes. 3. Anyhow are the teuton, germanic and norse languages just more that than they are Romance-Latin. 4. Agree that the "latinisation" are one of reasons that teuton, german and norse are more alike romanse-latin than slavic.
- HGL
- 1 It is AKKADIAN that is a Shemite language. Sumerian is not.
On top of it, Sumerian is agglutinating:
Nordisk familjebok / Uggleupplagan. 27. Stockholm-Nynäs järnväg - Syrsor /
705-706
http://runeberg.org/nfcg/0389.html
"Turaniserande ordföljd" was probably the next edition of NF, "same" article. But agglutinating grammar sounds not totally unlike Fenno-Ugrian. Besides Thot thinks it worthwhile to make a lexicon between Etruscan, Hungarian / other Fenno-Ugrian langs and ... Sumerian.
2 I never say Fins about Finland Swedes, and I never say Hungarians about Hungaria Saxons.
3 & 4 How much is left of originality depends on how deep the exposure to a lingua franca is. Longer - deeper. More Aristocratic - deeper too. If Indo-Europeans were to have a common ancestry after Ararat and Babel, they might have spread like an caste, an international élite. - IC
- I wrote that sumerian was similar/liknar shemite language not that it is.
In your link is written, in that fine old book, that it is impossible to put sumerian into any language-group. Well, what is agglutinating? What is turaniserande ordföljd?
I agree that indoeuropeans established like an elite.
But this altaic and uralian ideas not fit so well genetic and archeologic.
There also one more strange thing. You persuade that europeans were uralian and altaiic speaking. But if create a "lingua franca" to this. Why use something completely different? Why not create it from uralian and/or altaic? And if use anything different. Why not something already existing, like shemite language? Hebrew? - WF
- This is like a grand masters chess match here.
- HGL
- Agglutinating is when endings are like glued onto the word stem. If you want to express genitive plural you have a plural ending and a genitive ending. Swedish is agglutinating as far as genitive goes, nowadays, but was not earlier.
Now, you have a plural ending -ar, and then you have a genitive ending -s and nowaydays they are tacked onto each other, and if there is a definite article it is tacked on between them: sten-ar-ne-s. Earlier in Swedish genitive plura was typically flectating: stena with -a designing at once the genitive notion and the plural notion like in Latin.
Fenno-Ugrian and other Altaic languages have been agglutinating for centuries and millennia. You have no definite articles in them, but you can agglutinate endings corresponding to our possessive pronouns.
Etruscan and Sumerian are agglutinating languages.
"Turaniserande ordfölgd" or "Turanising word order" is the kind of word order characteristic of Ural Altaic languages. And either III edition of Nordisk Familjebok (not online) or Bonniers Konversationslexikon (not online either, I grew up with both), notes that Sumerian word order was such.
[Aryana? vs Turana? acc. to Old Persian]
And on top of that Thot has made a lexicon Etruscan - Fenno-Ugrian - Sumeric. He seems to think that there is a connexion.
Semitic languages have Ablaut, which Sumerian does not have.
[As far as I know]
"that it is impossible to put sumerian into any language-group."
It is from 1918, putting it into or in connexion with Fenno-Ugrian may have become possible since then.
And obviously, supposing it is still impossible according to the criteria of Indo-Europeanists, that means it is quite as impossible to make it an Indo-European language.
"But this altaic and uralian ideas not fit so well genetic and archeologic."
Where is the misfit?
"You persuade that europeans were uralian and altaiic speaking."
Rather that some of them were. Like those closest early on to where Fenno-Ugrians live now.
It seems the Slavonic word for "father" is the same as among Uralian Huns. Ojciec and Attila fit well together.
"But if create a "lingua franca" to this. Why use something completely different? Why not create it from uralian and/or altaic? And if use anything different. Why not something already existing, like shemite language? Hebrew?"
My suggestion is Indo-European was originally a lingua franca, like a kind of Russenorsk, between precisly the Semitic and the Fenno-Ugrian type. Mainly. Adding lots of other ingredients, but those are the ones that kind of define the verb system. Personal endings lots closer to Fenno-Ugrian than to Semitic, but an Ablaut system like in Semitic but not in Fenno-Ugrian. In most - but not Germanic - a grammatical and systematic opposition between Finished Past and Unfinished Past, like in Semitic.
By the way, I very much like the book too, here is the link to the main index of it:
Nordisk familjebok
(1876-1926, 1:a och 2:dra utg.)
http://runeberg.org/nf/ - IC
- Have etruscan and sumerian definite article?
Is Turanising word order, verb first?
The indoeuropeans follow a genetic pattern, not only language. They are all europeid. They have all high R1 y-haplogroup. All uralians have low R1 except the Hungarians. All uralians west of Ural have a low but significant inmix of mongoloids. East of Ural they are all mongoloid. Some altaic groups have high R1, but others only low. West-Turkmenians count as europeid of some but different opinions. East-Turkmenians are mongoloid, and so also mongols.
The only other folks/peoples who are all europeids have I y-haplogroup dominating. This genetical pattern must be considered.
A lingua franca is not total created. Latin was not created. It was later spread with the conquers and migrations. It could be possible for som tribes with similar languages to unified to one language as lingua franca. It might be a good view. - HGL
- Etruscan and Sumerian neither of them have definite article.
Turanising verb order is verb after object, substantive noun after adjective.
"The indoeuropeans follow a genetic pattern, not only language. They are all europeid."
Tocharian speakers too?
"They have all high R1 y-haplogroup. All uralians have low R1 except the Hungarians."
a) y-haplogroups are presumably patrilinear (I take it it is about Y-chromosome), which might fit well with Indo-Europeans spreading like an Aristocracy rather than a people.
b) as you just said, Hungarians share the heritage.
"All uralians west of Ural have a low but significant inmix of mongoloids."
Your version presumes mongoloid are primary in relation to Uralian, I think Mongoloid can be derived from Uralian. I think negroes descend from people the skin colour of Halle Berry around after flood. Then certain genes are more often selected, a kind of fashion, and in a small populationn pretty fast you have a new race, like the black or yellow ones.
"A lingua franca is not total created. Latin was not created."
True, and neither was English. However Lingua Franca (there was actually a language called so), Russenorsk, Esperanto were all created.
"It was later spread with the conquers and migrations."
Not just. Also by conquered and neighbouring people learning it in order to get prestige. Belloc thinks AEnglisc spread from court to court as they joined the Roman CHurch, whereas Celtic courts were either Celtic Church or Paganising (he thinks Penda of Mercia was a Celt), and that then it spread from courts to people. French spread from Aristocrat to Aristocrat during a few centuries. In Luxemburg French is official language number one, but the real vernacular is Letzebüergsch. Instead of saying "wir wollen bleiben was wir sind" they say "mer wolle bleiwe wat mer sein" or something. Along that you have both German and French.
The border between France and Belgium has probably first seen Franconian (of the low variety) spread south at the depense of Latin and then French spread North at the depense of Flemish. Lille/Rijssel was at a time a "language island" (hence the name) of Flemish descending from Low Franconian amid "a sea of" French descending from Latin. So if you have an élite changing language you can change the people's language too, especially if their vernacular is not a written and literary one or if they are cut off from its writing.
"It could be possible for som tribes with similar languages to unified to one language as lingua franca."
If the languages were similar to begin with, either they were descending from same language or they were similar due to long neighbourhood (like Roumanian and Greek sharing the Genitive/Dative merger - saying "I give his a book" instead of "I give him a book" more or less, or Roumanian and Bulgarian sharing Definite article as an ending, like Scandinavian languages) OR because they have all been already influenced by another lingua franca.
But a lingua franca can be created for people with very different languages. Russenorsk between Russian and Norwegian, Lingua Franca between Spanitalian and Arabomaghrebine (or even Levantic Arabic and Greek?), Romani, except for being already a natural lanuage, between diverse East European languages and Old German as well, Esperanto between Romance and Germanic. But with a nearly Chinese coupled with Old French grammar. - IC
- The name Attlla means lillefar/little father in guthans/gothian. The reason the High Chief of the huns had a gothian name could be an issue of a discuss itself. The Huns were an east "federation" of people/folks of different heritage.
Yes the Tocharians were included in this genetic pattern. Although they rather early had inmix of altai-mongiloid. Even today, if I remember correct, the tadjiks have high R1 level, and bouth the name sound a bit like the same. The last I only speculate. For ethnos of west-turkistan, racialy seen as europeid or intermix europeid-mongoloid.
Yes R1 is paternal line, and yes it suits well aristocratic spread, total agree. On paternal line near 50% Swedes have R1, but thanks to maternal line Swedes have 25-30% total indoeuropean heritage. This aristocrats of course had a genetic background, and that is shown in the markers. How many they were is hard to say. A lot fewer than 50% of the men, because their off-spring had better chanses to survive.
Hungarians is the only uralian speaking ethnos with more indoeuropean markers, therfore an exeption. The only indoeuropean ethnos who speaks uralian. In a complicated history of conquer and migration. They have higher, but low, asian-mongoloid heritage than most indoeuropean speakers.
Uralian-mongoloid heritage are defined by Y-haplogroup N, and other markers and appierence. It is more like uralians are a branch of asian-mongoloids, dominating subrace tungid. Uralian are more an ethno-group. Acording to Christian Antrophology, who sometimes make other old anthopoly look like kindergarten, other races than europeid were created of off-springs from Ham and other "beings" hrrm.
Exept for english and latin, the only rather big lingua franca is lingua-franca. The others had been rather small. Neighbour languages of course can impact(påverka) eachother, bouth in grammer and words. Can also be a reason by ethnos, and therefore language, that been there before and been more similar or the same. That prestige-theory, ney I do not think so. The central-french not came until the postrevolutionary jaobin-state. Anglo-saxons were just much pagans as Kelts. Until 1054 it was also more accepted with indenpendent churches. So also anglo-saxon church were more indenpendant, therefore one reason for Pope to support William the conqurer. - HGL
- "The name Attlla means lillefar/little father in guthans/gothian."
Suggesting these may have been closer to Slavs and Uralians, linguistically, than other Germanic language speakers.
"They have higher, but low, asian-mongoloid heritage than most indoeuropean speakers."
My point is that such people can have been origin of Mongolian race, the latter originating in purification of certain non-European and above all non-African traits. Just as I have earlier argued that black men originate from people the colour Halle Berry or coffee with plenty of milk.
"Acording to Christian Antrophology, who sometimes make other old anthopoly look like kindergarten, other races than europeid were created of off-springs from Ham and other 'beings' hrrm."
Maybe Russian version of it says so of Chinese. I do not know how bad the Russian Chinese relation is. What is sure is that the common version of it says all men descend from Ham, Sem and Japheth and their wives and through them from Noah and his wife and from other preflood people.
It is possible that Ham's wife had some Nephelim taint and that through her giants arose after the Flood.
But as for non-whites, like negroes on one hand and yellow people on the other hand, I think modern genetics gives an answer of how some traits at first found diluted can then have been purified if there was local fashionable preference for those traits.
"Exept for english and latin, the only rather big lingua franca is lingua-franca. The others had been rather small."
Forgetting French, Arabic, Greek, Aramaic, Akkadian before Aramaic of course ... not to mention Spanish. And the role Hindi has in India (or Hindi-Urdu if you count that as one language), and Mandarin in China.
"Neighbour languages of course can impact(påverka) eachother, bouth in grammer and words."
Yes.
"That prestige-theory, ney I do not think so. The central-french not came until the postrevolutionary jaobin-state."
Except among the aristocracy, and it influenced all of the patois.
"Anglo-saxons were just much pagans as Kelts."
According to Belloc that was just the case for a short while before they became Christians in Yorkshire and Kent. Then Anglo-Saxons started spreading to the courts accepting Roman Catholicism while Celts were mostly Celtic Catholics (or Celtic Orthodox, if you prefer) but sometimes lapsing back into Paganism.
"Until 1054 it was also more accepted with indenpendent churches. So also anglo-saxon church were more indenpendant, therefore one reason for Pope to support William the conqurer."
Not quite correct. Stigand sided with Caerularius, but before that particular occasion, Anglo-Saxons had been more Roman than the Celts, and that at least since the Synod of Whitby, VII th C (sexhundratalet).
IC, you seem to be Russian Orthodox or something. Your bishop seems to be against Creationism - first saying Creationism is at variance with Patristic Ethnology and Anthropology when it is not, then saying Patristic Ethnology includes an obligate accusation against non-whites of being mongrels with non-human beings.
Can it possibly be that your bishop or the bishops of his seminary grew up brainwashed by Communists?
Creation vs. Evolution : Dr. Frank Press ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/dr-frank-press.html - IC
- No I not forgot any of that languages you mentioned. I only talked about your examples above. Bouth Russenorsk and esperanto are small. The thing is that the created ones are small, than these who are spread out by conquer and migration are larger. Yes all; latin, english, french, spaninsh, arabian etc are so to speak linguas francas in an international view. Although on a national view they are not, but more like a "riksspråk", just like swedish, danish etc. That is true even for states who have more than one language, like Spain.
It is still my opinion that before 1054 that differences are important. To Churches and monastaries yes maybe, but to states and peoples, not so much.
Your last post I do not fully understand. Yes they are Orthodox. They are deeply anti-bolsheviks. Some of them norsemen some russian. They are more related to Katakombskaya and the exile Orthodox churches than the bolshevik influated Churches. Well this Christian Anthropology is very old, from 100-300BC, and not touched by modern politics. Intermix with other homonids not non-humans was it acording to this. - HGL
- "Bouth Russenorsk and esperanto are small. The thing is that the created ones are small, than these who are spread out by conquer and migration are larger."
Russenorsk is small because it is only traders and because Norway and Russia have a small border well outside in the periphery. Esperanto is small because it is not necessary, but if you add its reformed dialects it is bigger. Remember Ido, Interlingua, Latino sine flexione.
Also Russenorsk was made for a limited purpose. Not so Esperanto.
Now, if Indo-European earliest languages were constructed in Asia Minor to act as linguas francas between people like Lud, Het and Javan, possibly Gomer too, or rather their descendants (Lud - Lydians, Het - Hittites, Javan - Greeks, at least IOnic ones, Gomer - Kappadocians or Galatians), and if it was constructed by the highest élite, the scenario is a bit different.
"Intermix with other homonids not non-humans* was it acording to this."
Sorry, that is not the main Christian anthropology, if the Orthodox bishops you obey are antibolshevik, they have nevertheless been cut off from Christian learning by the Bolsheviks. If you want to believe them on this, ask them what Church Father they are citing.
By the way, Church Fathers are available on internet:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
[Warning, latter link also includes Origen and Terence, who are not quite orthodox]
I mean, just in case your bishop has a quote, so it is easier for him to share it!
[* Note, in case this means Neanderthals and Denisovans or even Homo erectus, a Creationist would not disagree about "not non-humans" but about "other" hominids in terminology. To Creationists in general Neanderthals are a human race and descends from Adam like the rest of them.] - IC
- Attila from Atta from Fathar, who is german.
I will believe them to tell the truth about the original Christian Antropology, than if I believe in that to 100% is another story.
Anyhow all of these constructed lingua francas are indeed small, and no they are not so needed. Yes that is one theory about the indueuropeans, from the Anatolia. Yes they were an elité, like we bouth stated. But also an élite has heritage and therefore spread its genes as well as language. For example Swedes has 25-30% heritage from them, although they were not so many from beginning. I think a minimum of 2,5-3%, but believe some more. Other ethnos have of course other percentage. I think that all languages came from a natural context, also the biggests lingua francas. - HGL
- Fadhar is Germanic, cognate of most IE langs' word for it, like pater in Latin and athair in Gaelic and pater in Greek and pitar in Sanscrit, I think Farsi is padar or something. No problem.
But how do you get "atta" from "fathar" or "fadhar"?
It makes more sense Atta and Ojciec are same word, distinct from the pater word. And in Hungarian I find two words for father: "apa" and "atya". In Finnish the main word for father is "isä", which fits with "atya", "ojciec" and with "atya", "atta", "attila".
"I will believe them to tell the truth about the original Christian Antropology, than if I believe in that to 100% is another story."
I believe they will tell the truth insofar as they know it and dare. I have given a chance about them proving they accord with Church Fathers. Look at the two links. Does your bishop want to check with Josephus too? - IC
- Atta is a shortend form for Fadhar/Fathar/Fadar. I looks rather similar more than ojciec or isä. Atya could be a loan-word from gothian to hungarian. The Goths were in that area. Other version of word "father" in slavic is; Otets and Otac. Atta looks closer to Fadar/Fathar.
Well I not know how you mean. Do you mean I shall contact him about this discussion? Sure that I have not considered. - HGL
- "Atta is a shortend form for Fadhar/Fathar/Fadar."
How?
"Other version of word 'father' in slavic is; Otets and Otac. Atta looks closer to Fadar/Fathar."
It so much does not. Remember, Atta is not the translation of "daddy", but of "father" in Gothic. The Lord's prayer starts Atta unsar in Gothic. Atta only needs to add ending -ts to give Otac. Atya only needs to add -ts to get Ojciec. The vowels A and O are similar and in Slavic short a tends to make o. And the Baltic word is yet another unrelated word, tevas. A Herulian Lord's prayer starts Tebbe Musu.
"Well I not know how you mean. Do you mean I shall contact him about this discussion? Sure that I have not considered."
I thought you had already done so. You may believe him without asking, before I do so, I want Patristic backup.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire