Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog

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

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

IC

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.

RT

I was under the impression that the hungarians were originally a Scythian desended race and later Huns?

IC

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.

RT

Right so not wrong with the Scythians and very very wrong with the Huns.

IC

In somehow you were right, just not see the hungarians as asians. Only some procent.

HGL

"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"

NOT PROVEN.

"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
http://litaviskkulturhistoria.blogspot.com/2008/11/prolog-litavens-kulturhistoria-uppsats.html

Or rather to its prologue. Here is the relevant first part of the essay:

Litaven : Litavisk kulturhistoria, problem 1
http://litaviskkulturhistoria.blogspot.com/2008/11/litavisk-kulturhistoria-problem-1.html

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.

Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup

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

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.

St Christiana & Nelson Mandela (eng/fr)

FB statuses and shares, laetare Sunday

I

Saint Christiana the Slave
http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-christiana-the-slave/

Fourth century Christian maiden kidnapped and enslaved by the pagan Iberi around the Caspian and Black Sea; her real name is lost to us, and she was called Christiana because she refused to give up her faith. Having performed miracles by praying, Christiana converted members of the Iberi royal family who sent to Emperor Constantine for priests and missionaries to convert their people.

15-XII

II

Royauté Xhosa imhumée, non en exile.

M: Afrique : Nelson Mandela inhumé avec ses ancêtres à Qunu
Le Monde.fr avec AFP | 15.12.2013 à 05h39 • Mis à jour le 15.12.2013 à 12h17
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/12/15/nelson-mandela-rejoint-ses-ancetres-a-qunu_4334623_3212.html

Est-il enterré maintenant? Non, mais quand même ...

Franck Abed

Mandela le terroriste est présenté comme un grand humaniste.... Triste époque !

PH

À chacun son idole !!

OK

t'as pas changé franky

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Je préfère un autre antiraciste sudafricain, JRRT:

daily mail: His precious: The revolver JRR Tolkien carried with him in the trenches of WWI is going on display for the first time
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517560/His-precious-The-revolver-JRR-Tolkien-carried-trenches-WWI-going-display-time.html

commentaire supprimé [sinon l'auteur du même m'a bloqué]

demandait à qqn s'il était nostalgique de l'apartheid

Hans-Georg Lundahl

moi non, mais par contre des libertés des Afrikaanders d'avant l'Apartheid.

OAS

lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

JRRT n'aimait pas l'apartheid (sa mère traitait la domestique noire comme essentiellement égale), mais n'aurait pas aimé le communisme d'après l'apartheid non plus

NN

Une belle mauvaise foi réac de compétition !

Hans-Georg Lundahl

réac, oui, de competition, je ne pige nada, mauvaise foi, non

[Suit une référence à un commentaire supprimé/ou dont l'auteur m'a bloqué:]

le cours de poterie n'était qu'une blague, quand à toi je trouve que ce sont parfois (pas forcément moi) des pov types que Franck Abed a sur sa liste d'amis ...

AM

Franck, terroriste est nécessairement une insulte pour toi ?

MR

Ne t'en fait pas Franck les blancs controlent toujours l'économie du pays .

[Pas les Boers/Afrikaanders celle de leur propres veelder, note de l'éditeur]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

J'ai des mauvaises mémoires de l'école SSHL, mais une bonne recontre était avec une suédoise-boer. J'avais avec les jeunes de la paroisse luthérienne fait une collecte pour les projets d'école de l'ANC. Elle refuse de donner. Pourquoi? Bon, ANC, on exécutait les "traîtres" (ceux qui refusaient de rejoindre son/leur combat) avec des pneus trempés en pétrol et allumés autour du cou. Après, je ne suis pas un fan de Mandela.

S'il a fait un acte de pénitence publique pour ces méthodes, qu'on le dise ... je n'en ai rien entendu.

MR

Le [...] actuel de l'Afrique du sud s'apelle "Jacob" , trés étrange ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

c'est comme ça qu'on dit Jacques en Hollandais

MR

Ça va pour le prénom , mais il a quand même beaucoup de casserole dérriere lui (viols,corruption,...) .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

ah ... était-il de la African National Congress?

(après les pneus en flammes, ça ne m'étonnerait pas trop)

MR

Oui

Hans-Georg Lundahl

ah oui ...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/story/0,25197,22948641-32682,00.html

[Error 403]Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /story/0,25197,22948641-32682,00.html on this server.

Et polygamiste aussi ... (c'est même sûr)

[la wikipédie sur Jacob Zuma précise qu'il y a eu des accusations de viol et de corruption - à différence de la polygamie ce n'est pas donc sûr]

Mais ceci est un peu banal comparé à ce que faisait le CNA ...

... Et la liberté d'expression aussi.

"NATIONAL ANTHEM OF Republi..." Le compte YouTube associé à cette vidéo a été clôturé, car nous avons reçu, à plusieurs reprises, des notifications de tiers pour atteinte aux droits d'auteur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9MIhS2SMs

C'était le lien pour l'hymne national de l'Oranje Vrystaat.

[Et les plaintes répétées fictives pour atteinte au droit d'auteur sont un moyen favori pour atteindre la liberté d'expression sur le ouaib]

Die Stem volle weergawe, Transvaalse Volkslied, Volkslied van die Oranje Vrystaat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3srv8R5orQ

Voor Rosemarie, myn schoelkamerat van SSHL ...

Ils ne sont pas des laïcistes (je comprend la plupart du texte "hollandais du cap") ...

YZ

[quelques insultes insensés, je ne sais pas à qui]

HR

[montre un image avec Mandela devant un marteau et faucille]

MZ

Un peu de respect... On parle d'un mort tout de même!!!*

HR

Il est mort. Il a comparu devant son Juge. Il a sans nul doute besoin de prières pour son âme. Point.

*La raison précise pourquoi il serait normalement mieux d'attendre jusqu'à ses pompes funèbres. J'ai un pressentiment contre cette attente, pourtant./HGL

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.

GB

[status with video :]

Oxford Academic (Oxford University Press) : New ideas on the origins of the Celts
[Barry Cunliffe, Britain Begins]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brxu_h_pzBg

KS

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.

BJ

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.

STh

I have many his books. He writes very well.

IC

Lingvistic research is one thing. Than there is genetic studies as well as archaelogy.

HGL

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 ...
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/09/sorry-duursma-but-all-languages-have.html

Une vue créationniste sur l'indo-européen [ibid.]
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/12/une-vue-creationniste-sur-lindo-europeen.html

Coniectura linguistica, pro casu unitatis vetustissimae indo-europaeae linguae. [ibid.]
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/coniectura-linguistica-pro-casu.html

IC

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.

HGL

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)

IC

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.

HGL

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.

IC

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.

HGL

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]

IC

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.

HGL

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.

IC

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]

HGL

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.

IC

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?

HS

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]

HGL

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.

WPF

Hans what about the Sumerian Gilgamesh? He was supposedly a survivor of the great flood.

IC

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.

HGL

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]

IC

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.

KS

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.

RT

Barry Cunliffs Book Facing the Ocean is a must read, fantastic book.

KS

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 Ysearch.org (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.

HS

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.

WPF

I tend to agree Helga.

IC

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.

HGL

"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)

IC

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.

HGL

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)

IC

Uralic languages from west of Ural have also inmix from the older european Basque type languages.

HGL

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.

IC

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.]

HGL

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]
http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19200405.HTM

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
http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/242263/Gratians-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]

IC

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. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml 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.

HGL

"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)
http://runeberg.org/nfae/0331.html

IC

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.

HGL

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.

IC

HS?

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.

HGL

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"
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/11/let-us-bury-equation-indo-european.html

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