298 Podsumowanie mojej wiedzy o Słowiańszczyźnie, chorych scytyjsko-sarmacko-tureckich fantazjach i ofitzjalnych przeciw-słowiańskich kłamstwach 02

Powstanie języków Euro-Indyjskich wg. teorii falowej Schimidt i Lechmann

Powstanie języków Od-Słowiańskich / Euro-Indyjskich wg. teorii falowej Schimidt i Lechmann

…..

Oto druga część wpisu poprzedniego. W tej części załączam moją dyskusję z komentatorem Onur Dincer, który okazał się być tym, kim się niestety okazał… Zaczynam od mojego komentarza (jednego z kilku), który nie ukazał się u Davidski’ego. Opublikowałem go więc u siebie, patrz:

SKRiBHa  2021-05-30 O 12:50
@Onur Dincer

(…) Both are Proto-Turkic and have no IE linguistic relation anyway. (…)

You are wrong again. Since, according to Davidski’s and your opinions, there are no typical Scythian and Sarmatian haplogroups in the current gene pool of Poles, logically the same applies to Iranian, Scythian, Sarmatian, as well as Turkish influences and borrowings in the Polish language, e.g. the word Kurhan / Ko’R+HaN, Kurgan / Ko’R+GaN, which is semantically identical to the Polish word Górka / Go’R+Ka.
Znów mylisz się. Skoro i wg Davidski i wg Ciebie brak jest typowo scytyjskich i sarmackich haplogrup w obecnej puli genowej Polaków, to logicznie to samo dotyczy irańskich, scytyjskich i sarmackich, a także tureckich wpływów i zapożyczeń w j. polskim, np. słowo Kurhan / Ko’R+HaN, Kurgan / Ko’R+GaN, które jest identyczne znaczeniowo do polskiego słowa Górka / Go’R+Ka.

Górka / Go’R+Ka
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C3%B3rka

Kurhan / Ko’R+HaN
https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/kurhan
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kurhan

It is the same with Zigurat / Zi+Go’R+aT, see:
Z Zigurat / Zi+Go’R+aT jest zresztą tak samo, patrz:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zigurat#English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat

The etymology of the word Ural is exactly the same, see:
Etymologia słowa Ural jest dokładnie taka sama, patrz:

Ural / (G)+o’R+aL
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ural

Góral / Go’R+aL
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C3%B3ral

Góra / Go’Ra
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C3%B3ra#Polish

And here for a comparison the etymology of the Himalaya Mountains:
A tu do porównania etymologia gór Himalaya:

Himalaya / HiMa+Lay/Ja
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

Hima / HiMa
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AE#Sanskrit

Zima / ZiMa
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zima#Polish

Note the typical secondary devoicing i.e. debuccalization / rough breathing Z/S > H, ZiMa > HiMa.
Zwróć uwagę na typowe wtórne ubezdźwięcznienia w typie tzw. rough breathing Z/S>H, ZiMa > HiMa.

Laya / Lay/Ja
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AF#Sanskrit

Śliski / S’+LiS+Ki
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C5%9Bliski

Ślizg / S’+LiZ+G
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C5%9Blizg

S=Z, K=G

The etymologies for Pamir, Hindu Kush, as well as Caucasus and the Carpathians are also IE.
Etymologie dla Pamir, Hindu Kush, a także Caucasus i Karpaty są też IE.

…..

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
I was not going to write anything here because I know how such an activity ends, see Gaska. I was kind of forced to write here by:

– Robert and AnnaM writing on my blog,
– as well as what Genos Historia, Copper Ax, Hannibal, Rob, but especially Onur Dincer wrote, see:

(…) The R1a finds in the paper seem to be all Z93 (…)
April 22, 2021 at 9:56 PM

There is nothing wrong in my statement. Check out the supplementary tables of the Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. paper, you will see that all the R1a samples with enough resolution are Z93 and none of them are Z283, thus very similar to the situation in the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya ancestors of Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas.

@Rob Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?
Proto-Turks might have been the Slav Grave people or at least a part of them. Genetics and geography are compatible with that, and chronology certainly fits. Proto-Mongols, on the other hand, might have been the Donghu people, their eastern neighbor.
April 23, 2021 at 12:31 AM

I hope you will not ban me just yet and let me here:

– list in points a summary of what resulted from our exchange of views,
– ask others questions about the Afanasievo-Aryan-Scythian-Sarmatian-Mongolian ‚origins of Turks’ and what comes out of it…

Unlike you, I am making a distinction between Proto-Turks and subsequent Turkic peoples and was talking about Proto-Turks in your quote of me. For me, Xiongnu-era and subsequent Turkic groups are post-Proto-Turkic. What you write about Turkic origins is largely relevant for the post-Proto-Turkic times, not Proto-Turkic times.
May 12, 2021 at 9:02 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…)There is nothing wrong in my statement. Check out the supplementary tables of the Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. paper, you will see that all the R1a samples with enough resolution are Z93 and none of them are Z283, thus very similar to the situation in the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya ancestors of Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas.(…)

Many thanks for your comment.

Let’s settle something at the beginning, because I do not know how to understand what you wrote above. I re-list all R1a available on the supplementary tables of the Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. paper, see:

R1a (R-L62, R-M420),
R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512),
R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512),
R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645),
R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),

R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93),
R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94)

1.
Do you claim that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched?

Davidski is not so sure about it, see:

(…) 4. These aren’t specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians. (…) May 2, 2021 at 6:03 AM

(…) 3. Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. (…) May 2, 2021 at 4:41 PM

(…) Unlike you, I am making a distinction between Proto-Turks and subsequent Turkic peoples and was talking about Proto-Turks in your quote of me. For me, Xiongnu-era and subsequent Turkic groups are post-Proto-Turkic. What you write about Turkic origins is largely relevant for the post-Proto-Turkic times, not Proto-Turkic times. (…)

I am happy that you distinguish it all! 🙂

2.
Can you describe how, where and when you think Proto-Turks and their Proto-Turkic language were formed?
May 13, 2021 at 3:08 PM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
Do you claim that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched?

What makes you think those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283 among them when all of the ones with enough resolution are Z93?

Davidski is not so sure about it, see:

(…) 4. These aren’t specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians. (…) May 2, 2021 at 6:03 AM

Davidski does not mention any Z283 among them, he mentions missing data thus insufficient resolution.

(…) 3. Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. (…) May 2, 2021 at 4:41 PM

Here Davidski is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper, and he makes may statements thus speculates.

Can you describe how, where and when you think Proto-Turks and their Proto-Turkic language were formed?

I think Late Bronze Age-Iron Age Mongolia and environs is the most likely place of origin for the Turkic language family. I suspect the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon is where it formed. But its expansion to all of what is now Mongolia and environs and further west probably began during the Xiongnu times, and it must be when lots of C2, R1a-Z93, N and even O2 males began to be incorporated in the Turkic groups and began to eclipse the original Q1 males, the confederative organization of the Xiongnu and the later Eastern steppe polities must have played a significant role in this process.
May 14, 2021 at 1:24 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
Do you claim that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched?
(…) What makes you think those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283 among them when all of the ones with enough resolution are Z93? (…)

I regret to say that you have not answered my question.

1.
Where did I allegedly state that ‚those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283’, hm?

It is not important what I think. It is important what has been written in this documentation. I am not correcting what has been written there, I have been merely trying to establish the facts. That is all I have been doing. I am asking those who are wiser than I am.

1a.
Are you just speculating on whether you can really prove that ‚that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched’?

(…) Davidski does not mention any Z283 among them, he mentions missing data thus insufficient resolution. (…)

2.
Should I therefore understand that all other cases of R1a (R-L62, R-L63, R-M420), R1a1a (R-M198, R-L449, R-M512), R1a1a1 (R-Z645, R-Z647, R-M417), are only poorly researched cases of R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) and R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94), or is this only the case of this paper?

2a.
How do you know if a given sample is or is not well tested?

’Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta.’
(…) Here Davidski is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper, and he makes may statements thus speculates. (…)

3.
Where did Davidski state that ‚ is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper’ ?!!

‘Can you describe how, where and when you think Proto-Turks and their Proto-Turkic language were formed?’
(…) I think Late Bronze Age-Iron Age Mongolia and environs is the most likely place of origin for the Turkic language family. I suspect the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon is where it formed. But its expansion to all of what is now Mongolia and environs and further west probably began during the Xiongnu times, and it must be when lots of C2, R1a-Z93, N and even O2 males began to be incorporated in the Turkic groups and began to eclipse the original Q1 males, the confederative organization of the Xiongnu and the later Eastern steppe polities must have played a significant role in this process.(…)

Afanasievo, Andronovo, Scythians, Seima-Turbino, Karasuk, Tagar etc. were present in the Altay area and preceded or coexisted with the Slab Grave Culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karasuk_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagar_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_Grave_culture

4.
Do you have any opinion on their relationship with each other?
May 16, 2021 at 4:27 AM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
Firstly, I suggest you be more humble in a topic (genetics) that you are new to.

Where did I allegedly state that ‚those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283’, hm?

You constantly talk about European subclades, the European subclades of R1a are Z283 and its subclades broadly speaking based on the modern distributions.

Should I therefore understand that all other cases of R1a (R-L62, R-L63, R-M420), R1a1a (R-M198, R-L449, R-M512), R1a1a1 (R-Z645, R-Z647, R-M417), are only poorly researched cases of R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) and R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94), or is this only the case of this paper?

Yes, it is a very frequent issue in ancient DNA papers. In fact, not all the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya samples are resolved to levels below Z645 either, so there is nothing that differentiates them from the R1a Cimmerians-Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas in terms of being Z93.

Where did Davidski state that ‚ is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper’ ?!!

This is what Davidski says:

Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta.

The Scythians and Sarmatians expanding into Central Europe are the westernmost ones, they are not included in this paper and Davidski is not talking about this paper when he mentions the westernmost ones obviously. Also, do note the „may” in Davidski’s statements, he does not say they had Z283 but just that they may have had it.

Afanasievo, Andronovo, Scythians, Seima-Turbino, Karasuk, Tagar etc. were present in the Altay area and preceded or coexisted with the Slab Grave Culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karasuk_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagar_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_Grave_culture

4.
Do you have any opinion on their relationship with each other?

Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave had genetics similar to those of the other ancient samples from what is now Mongolia with high Amur N and very low or no WSHG and no Yamnaya/steppe. Certainly nothing to do with the Altai or further western samples. The Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave samples we have have almost no ancestry from the other peoples you listed, they are genetically too East Eurasian compared to them.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EWM0EW3p8zb8u8NxnaB8Z9kXBUvYHExC/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1moIWwJ03fk2M2PZ4CdZVC50RVhFuI-eg/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16RpKDqWrnvV1mSHA0A-u0_d_0u_4oF2W/view
May 17, 2021 at 1:27 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
‘Where did I allegedly state that ‚those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283′, hm?’
(…) You constantly talk about European subclades, the European subclades of R1a are Z283 and its subclades broadly speaking based on the modern distributions. (…)

You misinterpret what I wrote. I am constantly writing about various things here. According to Davidski, Locomotiv is a mistake, so all R1a comes only from Europe, the Z93 from CWC, Fatianovo, Poltavka, etc., and all ‚Asian’ after-Sintashta too, see:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/09/y-haplogroup-r1a-and-mental-health.html

I have never claimed that only the R1a Z283 is ‚European’ and I have always referred to the data in that paper, see below.

‘Should I therefore understand that all other cases of R1a (R-L62, R-L63, R-M420), R1a1a (R-M198, R-L449, R-M512), R1a1a1 (R-Z645, R-Z647, R-M417), are only poorly researched cases of R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) and R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94), or is this only the case of this paper?’
(…) Yes, it is a very frequent issue in ancient DNA papers. In fact, not all the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya samples are resolved to levels below Z645 either, so there is nothing that differentiates them from the R1a Cimmerians-Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas in terms of being Z93. (…)

It is sad that such ‚poorly researched’ samples have been published so they have to be later ‚interpreted’. I do not ‚interpret’ the data, I just quote it.

(…) The Scythians and Sarmatians expanding into Central Europe are the westernmost ones, they are not included in this paper and Davidski is not talking about this paper when he mentions the westernmost ones obviously. Also, do note the „may” in Davidski’s statements, he does not say they had Z283 but just that they may have had it. (…)

Again, I have never referred to any Z283, but only to the data mentioned in the paper. What you presume about what Davidski may presume about some other data that have no relation to the data mentioned in the paper, is irrelevant to what I wrote about.

However, I already understand your position on the ‚poorly researched’ R1a samples mentioned above, and acknowledge that they may all be Z93s.

1.
Can you list some examples of R1a ‚westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper’ for comparison?

(…) Firstly, I suggest you be more humble in a topic (genetics) that you are new to. (…)

Well, can you tell me how to be even more humble and what do you think I should do?

Earlier I wrote: ‘It is not important what I think. It is important what has been written in this documentation. I am not correcting what has been written there, I have been merely trying to establish the facts. That is all I have been doing. I am asking those who are wiser than I am.’.

I have clearly expressed my respect for you. Would you like me to fall on my face in front of you and kiss your feet or something?

But seriously, would it not be easier if you just stopped manipulating my statements and answered my questions directly, instead of lecturing me in general? It will be more productive…
May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
‘Do you have any opinion on their relationship with each other?’
(…) Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave had genetics similar to those of the other ancient samples from what is now Mongolia with high Amur N and very low or no WSHG and no Yamnaya/steppe. Certainly nothing to do with the Altai or further western samples. The Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave samples we have have almost no ancestry from the other peoples you listed, they are genetically too East Eurasian compared to them. (…)

I clearly wrote ‚their relationship with each other’ and it was not just about genetics.

2.
Did The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people use cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows and kurgans? If so, did they invent them themselves or did they borrow them from someone else? From whom? From the Proto-Mongols and the Chinese, or from someone who had been using them much earlier and happened to live west, e.g. on Altay?
May 17, 2021 at 3:07 PM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
There is no manipulation of your statements on my part, at least not any deliberate one. I have been replying to you based on what I understand from your statements. In your earlier posts, besides Z283, you were treating the unresolved Z645 and clades above it as European and Z93 and its subclades as Asian, that is why I assumed you considered at least some of them as Z283. But now that you acknowledge that that the Z645 and above in this paper may be Z93 and in fact may all be Z93, there is no reason to dispute. Also, you should bear in mind that Z93 is first attested in Europe and is a subclade of Z645, which you already acknowledge to have evolved in Europe.

Did The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people use cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows and kurgans? If so, did they invent them themselves or did they borrow them from someone else? From whom? From the Proto-Mongols and the Chinese, or from someone who had been using them much earlier and happened to live west, e.g. on Altay?

Yes, they had the items you mention, and they borrowed such items and more (e.g., animal art, sheep and goats) from the cultures to their west around the Altai with very little to no genetic admixture from them.

BTW, I suggest you check out the figures 2, 3, S3, 4 and S4 in the Jeong et al. 2020 paper to better understand the autosomal genetics of the relevant populations:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420313210
May 17, 2021 at 9:55 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…) But now that you acknowledge that that the Z645 and above in this paper may be Z93 and in fact may all be Z93, there is no reason to dispute. (…)

I do not deny that you may be 50% right about the ‘poorly researched’ R1a Z93 samples mentioned in this paper. My point is you have not in any way proved that they really are R1a Z93.

You did not answer my questions 1 and 1a, from May 16, 2021 at 4:27 AM. I understand why you can not answer them. However, I ask you to answer my question I asked on May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM, see:

1.
Can you list some examples of R1a ‚westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper’ for comparison?

(…) Also, you should bear in mind that Z93 is first attested in Europe and is a subclade of Z645, which you already acknowledge to have evolved in Europe. (…)

Well, this is rather obvious and you should bear in mind that I logically pointed this out at least twice May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM.

(…) Yes, they had the items you mention, and they borrowed such items and more (e.g., animal art, sheep and goats) from the cultures to their west around the Altai with very little to no genetic admixture from them. (…)

I am glad that you confirmed my predictions that The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people borrowed cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows, kurgans, and even animal art, sheep, goats etc. ‘from the cultures to their west around the Altai’.

2.
Can you give the Turkish equivalents of these words?

2a.
Do you have any opinion on the borrowing of the names of these objects, as well as other terms related to them, such as the names of metals or the Altai mountains themselves possibly made by The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people?

3.
Do you have any opinion on where and when CHG got to the step and how Yamna / Yamnaya was created?
May 19, 2021 at 1:42 AM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
I do not deny that you may be 50% right about the ‘poorly researched’ R1a Z93 samples mentioned in this paper. My point is you have not in any way proved that they really are R1a Z93.

They may be Z93 or not. What is clear is that all the R1a ones resolved below Z645 are Z93, just like the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya cases.

Can you list some examples of R1a ‚westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper’ for comparison?

You are asking me to give examples to samples supporting Davidski’s speculation. You should ask that to Davidski, not to me. Anyway, since it is a speculation, even Davidski does not need to give any examples. You should already know the difference between judgement and speculation.

Well, this is rather obvious and you should bear in mind that I logically pointed this out at least twice May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM.

I did not claim the opposite.

Can you give the Turkish equivalents of these words?

Will give you the reconstructed Proto-Turkic (the likely language of the Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave people) equivalents instead to give a better idea (with the IPA symbols of the reconstructed sounds):

cow, cattle: *ingek, *sɨgɨr
horse: *at
wheel: its Proto-Turkic form is contested since different Turkic languages use different words for wheel
cart: *araba (of steppe Iranic etymology)
bow: *jaː(j)
kurgan: *kurgan or *koːrɨkan
sheep: *koɲ
goat: *ɛt͡ʃky

Do you have any opinion on the borrowing of the names of these objects, as well as other terms related to them, such as the names of metals or the Altai mountains themselves possibly made by The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people?

Of the reconstructed Proto-Turkic equivalents above, only *araba has demonstrated IE etymology, it probably comes from the Sakan rraha with the same meaning. As for the metal names, do not know any Turkic metal name of likely IE origin. The close to no IE borrowings in Proto-Turkic is in concert with the close to none IE genetic mix in Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave (likely Proto-Turks) despite them having IE cultural influence and borrowed cultural items from IE. By the Xiongnu times Turkic peoples would start to show significant IE genetic mix, but since their Proto-Turkic ancestors had aleady created their own steppe vocabulary and acquired the steppe way of life and items, they did not need to borrow steppe vocabulary from IE.

Do you have any opinion on where and when CHG got to the step and how Yamna / Yamnaya was created?

Yamnaya seems to be Sredny Stog-derived. The Sredny Stog people may well be the Proto-IE proper. As for the influx of the CHG-like ancestry to the Western steppe, it probably occurred sometime during the Mesolithic, if not earlier.
May 19, 2021 at 8:08 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
I asked you to ‚list some examples of R1a ‘westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper ‚for comparison’, not about ‚examples to samples supporting Davidski’s speculation’.

You did not answer my simple question, instead you misinterpret its meaning, speculate on other speculations, and generally lecture me again. It is not productive and you should have noticed by now that it does not work.

I understand that you do not know such data, so you can not provide them. You do not need to beat around the bush.

‘Well, this is rather obvious and you should bear in mind that I logically pointed this out at least twice May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM.’
(…) I did not claim the opposite. (…)

Nice! 🙂

‘Can you give the Turkish equivalents of these words?’
(…) Will give you the reconstructed Proto-Turkic (the likely language of the Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave people) equivalents instead to give a better idea (with the IPA symbols of the reconstructed sounds):(…)

You did not answer my question again. I am not interested in fake reconstructions / recreations, but only in contemporary words.

1.
Can you present the Turkish equivalents of these words, please?

If I understood correctly what you wrote, it is because The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people borrowed cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows, kurgans, and even animal art, sheep, goats etc. ‚from the cultures to their west around the Altai’, but they did not borrow their own names. It is very interesting!

2.
Can you present your interpretation of the Turkish meaning of words ‘Altai’ and ‘kurgan’ as well as their etymologies?

2a.
Can you present your interpretation of the history of the construction of buildings now known as the ‘kurgan’?

(…) Yamnaya seems to be Sredny Stog-derived. The Sredny Stog people may well be the Proto-IE proper. As for the influx of the CHG-like ancestry to the Western steppe, it probably occurred sometime during the Mesolithic, if not earlier. (…)

I understand that like Davidski, unlike Anthony, Reich, etc., you do not link the origins of Yamna / Yamnaya (and PIE) to Khvalynsk culture.

3.
Do you, like Anthony, Reich, etc., link CHG to the South Caucasus and Iran, or, like Davidski, do you disagree with them?
May 20, 2021 at 3:12 PM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
I asked you to ‚list some examples of R1a ‘westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper ‚for comparison’, not about ‚examples to samples supporting Davidski’s speculation’.

You did not answer my simple question, instead you misinterpret its meaning, speculate on other speculations, and generally lecture me again. It is not productive and you should have noticed by now that it does not work.

I understand that you do not know such data, so you can not provide them. You do not need to beat around the bush.

I know all the existing data. I was just surprised why you asked that question to me instead of Davidski. The westernmost Scythian samples you will find are from these papers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

No Z283 find among them.

You did not answer my question again. I am not interested in fake reconstructions / recreations, but only in contemporary words.

Those are not fake reconstructions, those are the reconstructions of top Turcologists worldwide. If you continue to make such arrogant or childish comments, I will not reply to you anymore.

Can you present the Turkish equivalents of these words, please?

The Turkish equivalents are inek/sığır (cow/cattle), at (horse), tekerlek (wheel), araba (cart), yay (bow), kurgan (kurgan), koyun (sheep), keçi (goat), all of them come from the Proto-Turkic ones as you see since they are from the basic vocabulary (tekerlek also has Proto-Turkic origins). The relevant metal names in Turkish also come from Proto-Turkic.

Can you present your interpretation of the Turkish meaning of words ‘Altai’ and ‘kurgan’ as well as their etymologies?

On the etymology of Altai I suggest this article:

https://www.academia.edu/33611500/SOME_NOTES_ON_THE_ETYMOLOGY_OF_THE_WORD_altai_altay

On the etymology of kurgan I am undecided between the *kurgan and *koːrɨkan etymologies. Both are Proto-Turkic and have no IE linguistic relation anyway.

Can you present your interpretation of the history of the construction of buildings now known as the ‘kurgan’?

Irrespective of who invented kurgans, it is clear that IE peoples made kurgans from early times and played a very significant role in their spread both in the steppe and outside of it. Proto-Turks would later adopt kurgan making from steppe Iranics and kurgans would become important elements of the Turco-Mongolic cultures as well.

I understand that like Davidski, unlike Anthony, Reich, etc., you do not link the origins of Yamna / Yamnaya (and PIE) to Khvalynsk culture.

I recently did such Vahaduo G25 runs for Yamnaya with and without Khvalynsk as a source population:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1etLxO9BHLMlzUcYTJ-NMXMbcKS2hu9Xo/view?usp=sharing

This is just an experiment, they should not be taken literally, we still lack sufficient data from pre-Yamnaya peoples of the Western steppe. Khvalysk may well be a dead end and even non-IE.

Do you, like Anthony, Reich, etc., link CHG to the South Caucasus and Iran, or, like Davidski, do you disagree with them?

That CHG-like ancestry in the Western steppe obviously came from a more southern location, what is in dispute is the timing of that arrival, what is clear is that it was in the Western steppe well before the Proto-IE times (Anthony and the others now acknowledge this too with the recent ancient DNA results; see: this).
May 22, 2021 at 4:18 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…) The westernmost Scythian samples you will find are from these papers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

No Z283 find among them. (…)

As I can see, you confirm what I wrote earlier, e.g. May 5, 2021 at 2:43 PM, May 6, 2021 at 6:48 AM! It is nice that you referred to Krzewińska and Juras’s paper.

It is obvious that Długosz, Kromer and other XV-XVII century catholic writers who derived the origin of the Polish nobility from these steppe nomads simply fantasized. They could also deliberately write untruths in order to, for example, divert attention from connecting the ancestors of Poles with the Vandals, who in 455CE conquered Rome.

The same applies to the works of contemporary ‘researchers’ like Jamroszko, Makuch, Kowalski, etc.

Sarmatism and claims about the origin of the Polish nobility from the Scythians and Sarmatians have been only lies and propaganda. Genetic data also support this. The lack of R1a Z283 among the ‚westernmost Scythians’ additionally confirms the above and also proves:

• the lack of contacts between ancestors of Poles (and maybe even more broadly the Slavs), and the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc., or other Iranian peoples,
• the lack of Iranian / Scythian-Sarmatian / Ossetian, etc. borrowings in Polish or even more broadly, the so-called Proto-Slavic languages,
• alleged Iranian borrowings, allegedly found in Polish or even more broadly, the so-called Proto-Slavic languages, are simply ancient remnants of primary languages used by R1a Z645, and next in CWC by both Z283 and Z93,
• devoicing, debuccalization, e.g. rough breathing and distortions, e.g. Rask rule / Grimm’s law, Verner’s law, etc. visible / heard in Indo-Iranian, as well as Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Italo-Celtic and Germanic, are logically secondary to the primary alternated forms of Slavic roots and sufixes, according to the R1a origin from CWC > Pripyat 😉 > Fatianovo > Sintashta > Andronovo, see May 2, 2021 at 5:28 AM.

There is, however, evidence of noble coats of arms very similar to tamgas. Therefore I take into account the origin of the Piasts from the Kiev Polans, who themselves could have descended from some Scythian-Sarmatian-Turkish-Khazar R1b or Z93 from the steppe. Unfortunately, research on this Piast DNA has been standing still for many years. I wonder why… 😉

(…) I was just surprised why you asked that question to me instead of Davidski. (…)

Surprised? Davidski (like you) on the basis of his presumptions May 10, 2021 at 4:39 PM, stated that:

‘You appear to be very new to this hobby and I don’t have the time to explain the basics to you. Also, considering that you’re referencing such nonsense as Carlos Quiles Indo-European blog, then you’re obviously completely lost, and I really don’t have the time for this.’

I never judge anyone by what it seems to me, but by what someone writes. I try to be very precise, I am quoting quotes and various sources. I treat my interlocutors the same way they treat me. I respect my reasonable interlocutors, but even to the unreasonable ones I have never written that they seem to be ‚new’. It is because many times, such ‘new ones’ have shown me that they were right and I was wrong. I am always grateful for new ideas and mistakes that are shown to me because I can learn much faster. I do not know you, who you are and it does not bother me. You should have already noticed that I am not referring to you, but only to what you wrote.

Once I have explained everything between you and me, I am going to come back to the questions I asked Davidski (which he ignored) on May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 10, 2021 at 4:05 PM. Maybe someone, including you will want to refer to them. To the rest of what you wrote, I am going to answer tomorrow in more comments.
May 25, 2021 at 3:08 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
‘You did not answer my question again. I am not interested in fake reconstructions / recreations, but only in contemporary words.’
(…) Those are not fake reconstructions, those are the reconstructions of top Turcologists worldwide. If you continue to make such arrogant or childish comments, I will not reply to you anymore. (…)

Maybe the Proto-Turkic reconstructions are plausible or maybe not, I do not care, because I deal with issues related to the so-called Indo-European languages, or logically rather Euro-Indian, or more precisely Euro-Asiatic.

I do not know if you are ‘new’ or ‘old’ to genetics, history, archeology, and linguistics, and I do not care. I know that reconstructions related to the so-called PIE, etc. are only ‚fake reconstructions / recreations’. They are based on wrong assumptions, so they are not worth much.

I can prove it to you in no time on the basis of the words I have already mentioned here. Moreover, I can prove it to you on the basis of one fairy tale and one word related to the feeling that has been with me from the moment you started lecturing me.

(…) On the etymology of Altai I suggest this article:

https://www.academia.edu/33611500/SOME_NOTES_ON_THE_ETYMOLOGY_OF_THE_WORD_altai_altay (…)

Here is the point of this paper at a glance:

(…) The word altay is is an oronym referring to Altai Mountains, but it, in this phonological form, is not attested to have existed in Old Turkic’. (…) The nominal altun yış attested eight times in Old Turkic runic inscriptions is used for ‘Altai Mountains’ . (…) The former ( Jīn 金 ) means ‘gold’ ( altın in Turkic) (…) 4. Semantically, the words referring “Altai Mountains” and have the meaning of “gold, golden”, support this etymology. (…)

On May 17, 2021 at 9:55 PM you already confirmed that peoples from Yamna / Yamnaya / Afanasievo and CWC spoke IE languages around Altai / Altay much, much earlier before the arrival of the Turkish peoples there.

This is why the etymology of the meaning of the word Altai / Altay should be sought in IE languages, see:

Altay / (Z)+aL+Tay

Żółty / Z”o’L’+Ty
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C5%BC%C3%B3%C5%82ty

Złoty / ZL”o+Ty
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/z%C5%82oty

The e/o > a transition complies with the Brugmann’s law.
May 27, 2021 at 3:13 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer‘Can you present your interpretation of the history of the construction of buildings now known as the ‘kurgan’?’
(…) Irrespective of who invented kurgans, it is clear that IE peoples made kurgans from early times and played a very significant role in their spread both in the steppe and outside of it. Proto-Turks would later adopt kurgan making from steppe Iranics and kurgans would become important elements of the Turco-Mongolic cultures as well. (…)

Exactly. Turco-Mongolic cultures formed much, much later in relation to both Khvalynsk, where the kurgans were built for the first time, and to Yamna / Yamnaya / Afanasievo, which was the second to build these tombs, and to CWC, Fatianovo, Sintashta , Andronovo, or the Scythians on Altai, who also built them. For all these cultures, the kurgan has always been a Górka / Go’R+Ka – hill shaped tomb and its meaning has never changed.

It is not logical that the IE descendants of the ancient IE cultures somehow forgot what their IE ancestors called these ‘grobowce’ / hill tombs.

Grobowiec / GRo+B+oW+ieC

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grobowiec

Grób / Gro’+B

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gr%C3%B3b
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/grob%D1%8A

Garb / GaR+B

https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/garb
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/garb
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/g%D1%8Arb%D1%8A

Since Proto-Turks did not borrow the name of the wheel from IE cultures from Altai, the Proto-Slavs could also not borrow Górka / Go’R + Ka / Kurhan / Ko’R + HaN, because they have never forgotten it!

By the way, there are words in the Polish language such as Kagan / KaGaN, Kaganiec / KaGaN+ieC and Kaganek / KaGaN+eK, see:

Kaganiec / KaGaN+ieC

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaganiec

Kaganek / KaGaN+eK

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaganek

When you drop suffixes and focus on the root od the word, you could understand the true meaning of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan

(…) The term is of unknown origin and possibly a loanword from the Ruanruan language. Pulleyblank (1962) first suggested that a Xiongnu title, transcribed as 護于 (Old Chinese: *hʷaʔ-hʷaʰ) might have been behind Proto-Turkic *qaɣan ~ *xaɣan. (…)
May 29, 2021 at 6:24 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
‘I understand that like Davidski, unlike Anthony, Reich, etc., you do not link the origins of Yamna / Yamnaya (and PIE) to Khvalynsk culture.’
(…) Khvalysk may well be a dead end and even non-IE. (…)

Khvalynsk was initial to kurgans and no CHG. If so, then both R1a and kurgans do not have to be originally related to PIE. I2 was also found in Khvalynsk and it came there from the Carpathians / GaRB+atians… 🙂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains#Name

‘Do you, like Anthony, Reich, etc., link CHG to the South Caucasus and Iran, or, like Davidski, do you disagree with them?’
(…) That CHG-like ancestry in the Western steppe obviously came from a more southern location, what is in dispute is the timing of that arrival, what is clear is that it was in the Western steppe well before the Proto-IE times (Anthony and the others now acknowledge this too with the recent ancient DNA results; see: this).

I must admit that I am not the only one who is fed up with slipping through presumptions about, e.g. CHG, the alleged ancestors of the Yamna from the South Caucasus or Iran, etc.

If I understood correctly what Anthony said in the video you attached, he now points to the Volga delta as the site of CHG’s steppe origin. He presumes again as there are no samples, etc as VasiSTha summarized on May 22, 2021 at 8:54 PM.

I associate the spread of CHG in the steppe around 5600 BC with the so-called Black Sea deluge hypothesis.

For some time now, I have been looking with increasing amusement at the official slipping of allegations about CHG, the alleged ancestors of the Yamnay from the South Caucasus, and Iran.

The same applies to other inconvenient topics that have been ground and chewed for over 150 years, such as e.g. the origin of the Slavs and Germans and their languages, etc. It looks worse and worse for Max Planck Institute, Reich, Kristiansen, Anthony, etc.

To make it funnier, I used to think like Anthony that PIE should be associated with EHG / Post-ANE Hunters of the North. Today, however, I have no opinion anymore and I am trying to solve this riddle out of defiance in line with what Robert proposes, who links PIE more broadly with WHG, and more specifically with I2.

If I understand what he is trying to explain, then according to him the I2 that was everywhere in Europe was PIE and it passed on the wheel, cart, horse, metals, agriculture, etc., and related vocabulary to R1b, R1a and so on. I do not know if this is true and I am testing this theory.
May 29, 2021 at 6:25 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
This comment did not come out on 05/27/2021 and 29/05/2021, so I am re-reposting it. Maybe this time it will be published…

’Can you present your interpretation of the Turkish meaning of words ‘Altai’ and ‘kurgan’ as well as their etymologies?’
(…) On the etymology of kurgan I am undecided between the *kurgan and *koːrɨkan etymologies. (…)

You did not answer my question again. 😦 I did not ask about ‚reconstructions’, but about the meanings and etymologies!

The reproductions of * kurgan and * koːrɨkan have the meanings ‚refuge, fortress, rampart, major shrine, fence, protection, to protect, to defend, to erect (a building), to establish’, see:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kurgan#Turkish
May 29, 2021 at 6:36 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
Here are the data on the ‚credibility’ of official recreations of the so-called PIE promised on May 27, 2021 at 3:13 PM. Maybe will be published at least.

Evidence No.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable

If reconstruction of the so-called PIE, etc. is supposed to be credible, so which of the 10 versions of this fable is really true and why others are not true?

Evidence No.2

VoMiT

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vomit

(…) from Proto-Indo-European *wemh₁- (“to spew, vomit”)

WeM?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wemh%E2%82%81-

*wemh₁- (imperfective)[1] to spew, to vomit

*wemh₁-ti (root present)
Indo-Iranian: *wámHti
Indo-Aryan: *wámHti
Sanskrit: वमिति (vámiti)

*wemh₁-e-ti (thematic present)
Indo-Iranian: *wámati
Indo-Aryan: *wámati
Sanskrit: वमति (vámati)

Slavic: Polish: wymiotować

Wszystkie powyższe postacie posiadają rdzeń W+MT.
All of the above forms contain W+MT root.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF#Sanskrit

From Proto-Indo-Aryan *wámati, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *wámati, from Proto-Indo-European *wémh₁-e-ti, from *wemh₁- (“to spew, vomit”). (…)

to vomit, spit out, eject (literally and figuratively), to emit, send forth, give out

Wymiotować / Wy+MioT+oW+aC’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wymiotowa%C4%87#Polish

(…) from Latin vomitō and wymiotać (“to throw out”).

According to the above ‘logic’, every Slav from the Pripyat Marshes, every Balt from the Baltic wilderness and every Aria from Fatianovo, Sintashta, Andronovo, Altai, etc. had to borrow this word from thechurch Latin during the 10th or or even later in the 15th century… Right.

Wymioty / Wy+MioT+y

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wymioty#Polish

vomiting, emesis, vomit, vomitus

Miotać / MioT+aC’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miota%C4%87

to fling, hurl

Synonym: ciskać

Miot / MioT

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miot#Polish

litter (offspring of an animal from one birth)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/metati

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/metati

From the same root as *mestì (“to throw, to sweep”).

Verb *metàti impf to throw

Related terms:

*mestì (“to throw, to sweep”)
*motàti (“to wind, to reel”)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/motati

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/motati

See *mestì (“to throw, to sweep”) for etymology.

to wind

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mesti

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mesti

From Proto-Balto-Slavic *met-. (…)

to throw, to sweep

Mieść / MieS’+C’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mie%C5%9B%C4%87#Polish

From Proto-Slavic *mesti (stem *met-).

mieść impf (perfective zamieść) to throw, hurl

Synonyms:

miotać, rzucać (transitive) to sweep
zamiatać, podmiatać, omiatać
June 1, 2021 at 5:28 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
Summary:

1.
The root of the words Vo+MiT and Wy+MioT is MT, not WM+T.

2.
Wy+ is just a prefix, see:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wy-

From Proto-Slavic *vy-.

Indicates movement outwards or away, e.g. from the inside rzucić (“to throw”) → to throw out of

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vy-

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vy-

From Proto-Balto-Slavic *ū́, from Proto-Indo-European *úd. The *y is a result of Winter’s law.

Prefix *vy- out

…..

As it can be seen above, the reconstruction of the so-called PIE etc. is just a humbug, and linguists have just been mumbling about it for 150 years.

As I have mentioned before, there are plenty of similar examples. If you still want to defend a ‚credibility’ of the so-called PIE, etc., I invite and encourage you to carry on with that.

By the way, I do not know why the second part of my comment on the etymology of the word kurgan can not be published here for the third time. Maybe the Blogger is allergic to something I have included in it. 😉

I published it at my blog, so if everyone can read it, even in two languages…
June 1, 2021 at 5:29 AM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
Yes, it is possible that the etymology of the Turkic word altun/altay (both forms meaning ‘gold’ apparently) could be traced back to some IE language. Could be some extinct IE branch or extinct Iranic branch with a word similar to Proto-Slavic *zoltъ with the same meaning. But the form altun/altay obviously evolved in Turkic as dropping of initial z is typical in Turkic.

As for the word kurgan, whatever its ultimate etymology, it must have been loaned to Old East Slavic from some Turkic language and spread to other European languages from the East Slavic languages in the modern era. The form kurgan is very Turkic in sound, transformation of initial g to k is typical in Turkic.

It is accepted by many historians and linguists that kagan/khagan is a post-Proto-Turkic and even post-Xiongnu loan to Turkic languages. But do not think it has a relation to the Slavic words you mention. Could be from some Iranic language.

Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions. That is because Proto-Turkic was spoken as recent as the Iron Age.

Having said that, no need to be so harsh towards the Proto-IE reconstructions, Proto-IE studies have improved a lot since the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and the discovery of the various IE sound laws.
June 3, 2021 at 1:53 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@EastPole
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/05/beware-of-greeks-bearing-gifts.html?showComment=1622670771877#c4272725626407296957

(…) I don’t think we have much to do with Scythians and Sarmatians. They were very mixed steppe people, their language and culture, religion are unknown. (…)

True, see the many haplogroups mentioned above, etc.

The Slavs as well as the Aryans, and then the Scythians and Sarmatians, are derived from R1a from the CWC. Only that the former come from the tribe which remained where the CWC was formed where R1a Z283 mutated. The latter come from a different tribe, where R1a Z93 mutated, which moved north from the eastern Carpathians to Fatianovo and beyond.

Logically, the language, tradition and culture of the Slavs must therefore be primal to the language of the Aryans, Scythians and Sarmatians, etc.

1.
Do you have any idea why there were simultaneous mutations and division into the western Z283 and the eastern Z93 in Fatianovo and beyond?

(…) I don’t think the Piast legend comes from them. In my opinion it was the opposite direction, i.e. from us to India, Iran and Greece. (…)

As I understand, you do not agree with the theses contained in the ‚works’ by Jamroszko, Makuch, Kowalski, or earlier in Długosz, Kromer, Bielowski and other followers of Sarmatism, about the origin of the Polish nobility, or Iranian borrowings in the language, tradition and culture of the Slavs.

2.
So how to explain the visible similarities according to Makuch in the so-called Iranian mythology and in Polish legends?

2a
Are these just traces of a common post-CWC / post-PIE tradition?

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayanian_dynasty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvarenah

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chwa%C5%82a

(C)HWaL”a > HwaRa

L>R

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveh_the_Blacksmith

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kowal

KoW+aL > KaV+eH

e/o>a

(…) Similarities in Slavic, Vedic and Orphic religions come from the common source which most likely was CWC. I strongly believe some Tripolye influence judging by their symbolic ceramic. (…)

3.
Is PIE tradition homogeneous or mixed, eg. WHG / EEF R1b / I2a (e.g. from Tripolye etc.) + EHG R1b / R1a?

4.
What do you think of kurgans, their origin, etymology and meaning as the original symbol of PIE?

5.
What do you think of my aforementioned etymologies for Vo + MiT / Wy + MioT, etc?
June 5, 2021 at 5:43 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…) Yes, it is possible that the etymology of the Turkic word altun/altay (both forms meaning ‘gold’ apparently) could be traced back to some IE language. Could be some extinct IE branch or extinct Iranic branch with a word similar to Proto-Slavic *zoltъ with the same meaning. But the form altun/altay obviously evolved in Turkic as dropping of initial z is typical in Turkic. (…)

Thank you very much for confirming that according to the data and logic, the etymologies of Turkish words such as Altai / Altay are derived from the earlier IE vocabulary, see:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Scythians

I wonder what others, such as Hüseyin Yıldız, will now say. He somehow failed to take into account such logically obvious IE etymologies when he was writing his paper…

(…) As for the word kurgan, whatever its ultimate etymology, it must have been loaned to Old East Slavic from some Turkic language and spread to other European languages from the East Slavic languages in the modern era. The form kurgan is very Turkic in sound, transformation of initial g to k is typical in Turkic. (…)

It is possible that sometime, perhaps during the Hun invasion, the distorted original meaning of the word Go’R+Ka / ‘hill’ was secondarily borrowed into some Slavic dialect, and then transferred further, see:

Go’R+Ka > Ko’R+GaN > Ko’R+HaN > Ko’R+GaN

However, this does not change the fact that the Slavic meaning of the word Go’Ra / Go’R+Ka is primary and ‚ultimate etymology’ for Turkish meanings, such as ‘refuge, fortress, rampart, major shrine, fence, protection, to protect, to defend, to erect (a building), to establish’, etc., compare with Z”o’L” Ty / ZL”oTy> (Z)+Altai / (Z)+Altay.

An interesting fact is that for some Slavic languages, the secondary transformation of G > H is typical, see GoRa > HoRa.

(…) It is accepted by many historians and linguists that kagan/khagan is a post-Proto-Turkic and even post-Xiongnu loan to Turkic languages. But do not think it has a relation to the Slavic words you mention. Could be from some Iranic language. (…)

This is illogical. The CWC language is the direct ancestor of all Slavic languages, while all Indo-Iranian languages are derived only indirectly from CWC language, see:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Abrashevo > Balanovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians

Logically, what is IE in Indo-Iranian MUST come from the CWC, that is, be directly Slavic.

1.
Could you try to undermine my etymologies for the words KaG/HaN / KaGaN+eK and Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, etc. and give some of yours?
June 6, 2021 at 7:07 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…) Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions. That is because Proto-Turkic was spoken as recent as the Iron Age. (…)

This is logically very likely.

(…) Having said that, no need to be so harsh towards the Proto-IE reconstructions, Proto-IE studies have improved a lot since the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and the discovery of the various IE sound laws. (…)

In these two sentences above, you logically contradict yourself. ‚Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions’, means that ‚Proto-IE reconstructions’ are less precise and secure than the former.

The fact that someone has invented ‚various IE sound laws’ only means that ‚various IE sound laws’ have been formulated and nothing else, see e.g. so-called Winter’s law which is invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter%27s_law

It is not a quantity that counts, but the quality and Occam’s razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

I am glad you mentioned ‚decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages’.

2.
Are you claiming that ‚the Anatolian IE languages’ existed before the CWC language?

2a.
Do you know on what grounds the existence of the so-called Hittite „coefficients sonantiques”, which are now the so-called laryngeals was proved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory

Let me remind you that the alleged so-called laryngals allegedly modified only vowels, while word roots are made up of consonants only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophony
June 6, 2021 at 7:08 AM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
It is possible that sometime, perhaps during the Hun invasion, the distorted original meaning of the word Go’R+Ka / ‘hill’ was secondarily borrowed into some Slavic dialect, and then transferred further, see:

Go’R+Ka > Ko’R+GaN > Ko’R+HaN > Ko’R+GaN

Even if the word kurgan is ultimately of IE origin (which is yet to be demonstrated), the g > k transformation should have happened in Turkic. So the word kurgan should have been formed in Turkic regardless of its ultimate origins, then was loaned to Old East Slavic and from East Slavic spread to other European languages.

This is illogical. The CWC language is the direct ancestor of all Slavic languages, while all Indo-Iranian languages are derived only indirectly from CWC language, see:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Abrashevo > Balanovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians

Logically, what is IE in Indo-Iranian MUST come from the CWC, that is, be directly Slavic.

The CWC language is ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian and probably to some other IE branches too. Fatyanovo is just the eastern wing of CWC (they are contemporary if you do not know), probably spoke an eastern dialect of the CWC language and ultimately led to Indo-Iranian. And more importantly, no Balto-Slavic language is attested east of the Urals before the Russian expansion to east of the Urals beginning from the late 16th century.

In these two sentences above, you logically contradict yourself. ‚Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions’, means that ‚Proto-IE reconstructions’ are less precise and secure than the former.

I do not contradict myself. I already stated that Proto-IE reconstructions are mostly less precise and secure than Proto-Turkic reconstructions, but that by no means translates to „Proto-IE reconstructions are imprecise and insecure.”

The fact that someone has invented ‚various IE sound laws’ only means that ‚various IE sound laws’ have been formulated and nothing else, see e.g. so-called Winter’s law which is invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter%27s_law

It is not a quantity that counts, but the quality and Occam’s razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Not all IE sound laws have equal acceptance in academia. Also not all of them are connected with each other. They are not all to be treated similarly.

Are you claiming that ‚the Anatolian IE languages’ existed before the CWC language?

The branch leading to them probably diverged before the CWC language yes.

Do you know on what grounds the existence of the so-called Hittite „coefficients sonantiques”, which are now the so-called laryngeals was proved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory

The laryngeal theory was proposed already before the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and confirmed with their decipherment, it is one of the most widely accepted IE phonological theories.
June 7, 2021 at 5:47 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer(…) Even if the word kurgan is ultimately of IE origin (which is yet to be demonstrated) (…)

I have already demonstrated this etymology on June 1st, 2021 at 5:29 AM, see:

‘By the way, I do not know why the second part of my comment on the etymology of the word kurgan can not be published here for the third time. Maybe the Blogger is allergic to something I have included in it. 😉 ‚I published it at my blog, so if everyone can read it, even in two languages…’

I referred to it in my question you did not answer, see:

‘1.
Could you try to undermine my etymologies for the words KaG/HaN / KaGaN+eK and Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, etc. and give some of yours?’

Since you did not answer this question, I mean that you can not undermine any of my etymologies, including the etymology for the word Go’Ra / Go’R+Ka > Ko’R+G/HaN.

(…) the g > k transformation should have happened in Turkic. So the word kurgan should have been formed in Turkic regardless of its ultimate origins, then was loaned to Old East Slavic and from East Slavic spread to other European languages. (…)

G>K transformation, or rather the distortion, could have happened at any time on the way from CWC to Altai or later, for example, when the Turkish tribes finally got there.

The fact is that the Proto-Turks / Slab Grave People were not the first to build kurgans, but only borrowed the tradition of building them from earlier IE Altai cultures.

Logically, Proto-Turks / Slab Grave People in the same way borrowed the original meaning of the word Go’Ra / Go’R+Ka / hill, and then distorted both its original meaning and pronunciation > Ko’R+G/HaN.

In none of the Slavic dialects, the word Ko’R+G/HaN means ‘refuge, fortress, rampart, major shrine, fence, protection, to protect, to defend, to erect (a building), to establish’, etc.

The Slavic meaning is one and the same as the original meaning GRo’B / tumulus in the shape of Go’Ra / Go’R+Ka / hill.
June 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer(…) The CWC language is ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian and probably to some other IE branches too. Fatyanovo is just the eastern wing of CWC (they are contemporary if you do not know), probably spoke an eastern dialect of the CWC language and ultimately led to Indo-Iranian.(…)

Exactly! The territories of CWC Z283 and Z93 and the Slavic languages overlap from the Elbe through the Carpathians, Pripyat to Fatianovo. 🙂

The CWC language was the basis for further transformations, which eventually, as a result of distortions of the original CWC language, led to the emergence of secondarily devoiced / distorted Indo-Iranian languages, perhaps already in Abrashevo, Balanovo or Sintashta, and maybe only in Andronovo.

I repeat:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Abrashevo > Balanovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians

Logically, what is IE in Indo-Iranian MUST come from the CWC, that is, be directly Slavic.

By the way, deriving the meaning of the name Altai from the Indo-Iranian languages does not make any sense, see:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D8%B1#Persian

From Middle Persian *zarr (“gold”), from Parthian *zarn (“gold”), the inherited form would start with a D, as is seen in Old Persian (d-r-n-y). Probably ultimately from a derivative of Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“yellow; gleam; to shine”). Indo-Iranian cognates include Northern Kurdish zêrr, and Sanskrit हिरण्य (hiraṇya). Other cognates include Old Church Slavonic злато (zlato), Latvian zelts, and English gold and yellow.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF#Sanskrit

From Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰr̥Hanyam (“gold”), from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰl̥h₃-en-yo-m, from *ǵʰelh₃- (“yellow, golden”). Cognate with Avestan (zarańiia, “gold”), Old Persian (d-r-n-y /daraniya/, “gold”), Russian жёлтый (žóltyj, “yellow”), English gold and yellow. Also related to हरि (hári).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF#Sanskrit

From Proto-Indo-Aryan *źʰárHiṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰárHiš, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“to shine”). Cognate with Avestan (zairi), Persian زر‎ (zar, “gold”).

(…) And more importantly, no Balto-Slavic language is attested east of the Urals before the Russian expansion to east of the Urals beginning from the late 16th century. (…)

Well, so what? Does this mean that the IE Indo-Iranian language of the Aryans was somewhow atested or fell from space in Arkaim? It did not arise from the distortion of the original language of CWC Z283 and Z93, and earlier PIE, see e.g. e/o>a, etc.
June 8, 2021 at 4:08 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…) Not all IE sound laws have equal acceptance in academia. Also not all of them are connected with each other. They are not all to be treated similarly. (…)

Really?! Well, what is that supposed to prove? Since ‚Not all IE sound laws have equal acceptance in academia’, why did you refer to it?

I understand that you are in a severe shock after discovering that Altai has IE or more specifically Slavic etymology which the Turkish and other etymologists could not somehow discover for ages, but try to be factual, okay?

‘Are you claiming that ‚the Anatolian IE languages’ existed before the CWC language?’
(…) The branch leading to them probably diverged before the CWC language yes. (…)

It might as well not be that way, and you are again just speculating, and probably will not be able to prove it, am I wrong?

(…) The laryngeal theory was proposed already before the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and confirmed with their decipherment, it is one of the most widely accepted IE phonological theories. (…)

Nice, but I did not ask who, whom or what, accepting or not. My question you did not answer was:

2a.
‘Do you know on what grounds the existence of the so-called Hittite „coefficients sonantiques”, which are now the so-called laryngeals was proved?’
June 8, 2021 at 4:09 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
Emendation to June 8, 2021 at 4:08 PM

Well, so what? Does this mean that the IE Indo-Iranian language of the Aryans was somewhow atested or fell from space in Arkaim? No! It did arise from the distortion of the original language of CWC Z283 and Z93, and earlier PIE, see e.g. e/o>a, etc.

I am sorry for the mistake.
June 9, 2021 at 1:34 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer‘I do not contradict myself. I already stated that Proto-IE reconstructions are mostly less precise and secure than Proto-Turkic reconstructions, but that by no means translates to „Proto-IE reconstructions are imprecise and insecure.”’

Somehow I missed the above.

Of course, of course, you do not contradict myself, Proto-IE reconstructions are precise and secure, I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right. 😉

If so, then you can easily challenge my etymologies for the words Vo + MiT / Wy + MioT. Will you finally do it?
June 11, 2021 at 1:28 AM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
Will not reply to any more of your comments. Not interested in your pseudoscientific claims and Turboslavism. Have no time to waste.
June 11, 2021 at 9:08 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
In the beginning, I have to correct myself, see:

‘Of course, of course, you do not contradict yourself, Proto-IE reconstructions are precise and secure, I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right. ;-)’

‘Will not reply to any more of your comments. Not interested in your pseudoscientific claims and Turboslavism. Have no time to waste.’

In those sentences above, did you use reonstructed Proto-Turkish grammar or mayby someone just ‘hacked your account’?

Since June 3rd, 2021 at 1:53 PM, the logical consistency of your comments has just been deteriorating. Judging by the ‚quality’ of your answers, it is more than obvious that the simple logic of my evidence just overwhelmed you.

On the other hand, I never thought you could last this long. I thought you would run away on the occasion of proving IE etymology of the word Altay.

The fact that you will not be able to challenge my etymologies for the words Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, etc. was logically obvious.

It is not strange, since your ‚knowledge’ is based on logically biased outdated XIX century Prussian humbug and linguists like Hüseyin Yıldız, who does not know IE etymology for the word (Z)Altay / Z”o’Ly. I am sorry you are in cognitive shock. It was not my goal.

Anyway I thank you very much for everything you wrote. However, in the future, you could try to use subjects at the beginning of each sentence according to the SVO rule and stop writing junk English.

If you have not noticed it yet, English is IE language and its logic should not be crippled by some Turkic sentence-building rules. More broadly, the same is true of logic as such.

However, especially I thank you very much for your last comment. You summarized in it not only the ‚knowledge’ you have and how you can defend it, but your whole self.

As it can be seen above, not only children start calling names when they have no arguments. I am not going to lie down and equal with your level.

Instead, I wholeheartedly wish you to broaden your horizons and get rid of those unscientific anti-Slavic biases and complexes. Pull your socks higher because I believe you can do much better. 🙂

Best regards
SKRiBHa
June 12, 2021 at 3:40 PM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
I would not reply to you, but you made so blatantly wrong claims in your last comment that I could not resist writing a short reply. I will ignore what you wrote on etymology, which repeats the same biased and flawed arguments, and your very subjective remarks about me and will just focus on some of your new arguments:

Anyway I thank you very much for everything you wrote. However, in the future, you could try to use subjects at the beginning of each sentence according to the SVO rule and stop writing junk English.

If you have not noticed it yet, English is IE language and its logic should not be crippled by some Turkic sentence-building rules. More broadly, the same is true of logic as such.

Most languages, including most IE languages (including your own Polish), are null-subject and thus permit subject dropping, that has nothing specifically to do with Turkic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null-subject_language

Moreover, English allows subject dropping too in certain contexts and the sentences in my previous comment were good examples to that, anyone who labels them as junk English either does not know English enough or is deliberately distorting the facts. I invite every native English speaker here to check all my comments on this thread for grammatical errors and report them here.

On the other hand, I never thought you could last this long. I thought you would run away on the occasion of proving IE etymology of the word Altay.

I decided not to reply to you as soon as I noticed your Turboslavism. If I did it late it is because I was slow to notice that.

Instead, I wholeheartedly wish you to broaden your horizons and get rid of those unscientific anti-Slavic biases and complexes. Pull your socks higher because I believe you can do much better. 🙂

The only bias I have is anti-idiocy bias. I just cannot stand idiocy. If that is a flaw, I admit to be flawed.
June 12, 2021 at 6:27 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
I would not reply to you, but you made so blatantly wrong claims in your last comment that I could not resist writing a short reply. I will ignore what you wrote on etymology, which repeats the same biased and flawed arguments, (…)

Blablabla… The truth is that you have no arguments and you are not able to undermine what I proved and stated. It is a pity you have nothing left to write but lies. I expected something more from you.

From now on, I am going to ignore your rudeness, obvious ignorance and prejudice,.. so logically this exchange of our views comes to its end. 😦

(…) Most languages, including most IE languages (including your own Polish), are null-subject and thus permit subject dropping, that has nothing specifically to do with Turkic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null-subject_language

(…)

If you have not already noticed, English is not one of the languages where subject skipping is officially permitted (see above).

‘Not interested in your pseudoscientific claims and Turboslavism.’

In the ‘sentence’ above, there is neither a subject nor a verb, i.e. this ‘sentence’ is as ‘true’ as the statements contained therein. You should be embarrassed with this! Who do you want to lecture?

(…) Moreover, English allows subject dropping too in certain contexts and the sentences in my previous comment were good examples to that, anyone who labels them as junk English either does not know English enough or is deliberately distorting the facts. I invite every native English speaker here to check all my comments on this thread for grammatical errors and report them here. (…)

I have not used any informal language, slang or slurs towards you or anybody. I have always written to you or anybody respectfully and in plain English.

(…) The only bias I have is anti-idiocy bias. I just cannot stand idiocy. If that is a flaw, I admit to be flawed. (…)

You have the right to your ‘anti-idiocy biased’ opinion, but it does not mean that you have presented any evidence to prove it. You have no arguments, so you try to use insults to cover up your mental defeat. I would be ashamed to act like that. Manners and logic are important, but I understand that you have got problems with both.

I hope that from now on, you will remember forever that the word Altay has an IE / slavic etymology (Z)Altay / Z”o’LTy.

It has nothing to do with the Iranian languages, see L>R, Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰr̥Hanyam (“gold”), Proto-Indo-Aryan *źʰárHiṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰárHiš, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“to shine”), cognate with Avestan (zairi) Sanskrit हिरण्य (hiraṇya), Avestan (zarańiia, “gold”), etc., much less with the Proto-Turkic languages, as you said.

Sorry to accidentally ruin your Altay and other Turboturkic fantasies. I suggest, next time you try harder, educate yourself, be open and humble to others as well as to the generally available data and you (possibly) will not be intellectually exposed so easily. 🙂

I understand that Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, Go’Ra / Go’R+Ka > Ko’R+G/HaN, KaG/HaN / KaGaN+eK, etc. is already too much for you to swallow and digest. (Next time maybe? If it helps you, I would like to reassure you that you are not alone).

That would be all about your credibility. That is all I would like to tell you.

…..

I will write a summary of this thread.
June 13, 2021 at 3:44 PM

Onur Dincer said…
Wow, I am accused of being anti-Turkic (see Hannibal’s replies to me) and being Turboturkicist on the same blog thread, what a world! 🙂
June 14, 2021 at 1:35 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…) Wow, I am accused of being anti-Turkic (see Hannibal’s replies to me) and being Turboturkicist on the same blog thread, what a world! 🙂 (…)

WoW / L”oL”! 🙂 As I can see, you have finally learned how to use the subject and the verb in English sentences! Good. It is nice that you swallowed what I had written above and you are digesting it in silence.

I remind you that this thread concerns the topic of the Scythians and Sarmatians and what is related to them.

If I were you, I would be focusing on this and on the substantive defense of what you wrote, rather than trying to make a victim of yourself and make me laugh. This is pathetic.

Be finally serious and professional. What you have been doing only keeps sinking into yourself. I do not care about your emotional problems and relationships with other commentators. Take care of them on your own. I can not help you in this matter.

By the way, I have not wanted to comment on that earlier, but I have changed my mind because it fits here:

(…) I decided not to reply to you as soon as I noticed your Turboslavism. (…)

Be finally honest. Admit that you have no idea what the term you used above is and does mean. You repeat it mindlessly like a parrot after other mindless like you anti-Slavs.

You stopped writing back because you finally somehow realised that you had been in a trap that you had set for yourself with your Turboturkic / Turboturian haughtiness and ignorance. You needed an excuse to get away from my few simple arguments that logically trampled you and what you supposedly knew deeply on the Mongolian steppe.

You have twisted and slipped as best as you could, but still unconsciously admitted your ignorance and anti-Slavic prejudices. You made fun of yourself and now you are just plain stupid. You are a very easy and predictable opponent and the quality of your evidence is as seen above. TBC.
June 16, 2021 at 3:23 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
(…) If I did it late it is because I was slow to notice that. (…)

If I were you, I would never publicly admit that you associate so ‘wisely’ and ‘quickly’. You know, others can easily use it against you in the future. 🙂

Your Turboturkic bias pours out of you everywhere and is clearly visible. It is worth as much as your fake Turboturkic etymology for word Altay, etc. 🙂

It is obvious that you are anti-Slavic biased and as it can be observed, you know little of both genetics, logic, linguistics, etc. Your illogical arguments about the alleged creation of the Slavs and Slavic languages, prove it, see:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html

Onur Dincer said…
@ambron
The Slavic homeland is only an ethnolinguistic concept. It is a geographic area where Slavic linguistic innovations were born. And it is not the area of Polesia, as some archaeologists try to prove, and which linguists definitely deny (the Baltic toponymy of Polesia). It has long been denied by genetics (the Baltic genetic substrate of Polesia), and today denies it archeogenomics – the vast majority of early Slavic genomes are most similar to contemporary Poles and Western Slavs, the vast majority of Poles and Western Slavs cannot be a mixture of genetic Belarusians and Restgermans (Kowalewko males).

Cannot Proto-Slavs themselves be a mixture of a Baltic-like population and early Germanics?
May 13, 2021 at 1:41 PM

@EastPole
Your graph is little different from Turbo-Slav shits. Proto-Germans obviously existed before Proto-Slavs.

@ambron
My question was more about possibility than probability, thanks for your answer. I do not know modern Kashubian genetics BTW, what can you tell me about it?
May 14, 2021 at 3:21 AM

@ambron
And the Slavic dialects are of course much more archaic than the Germanic dialects.

Slavic itself might be more archaic than Germanic, but that does not mean Proto-Slavic was spoken earlier than Proto-Germanic, just means that pre-Germanic diverged from Proto-IE more than pre-Slavic.

@Arza
The consensus is that the proto-languages in the absence of written records cannot be reliably dated.

All the IE trees I have seen so far that show the times of branchings converge all the Germanic branches at an older time than all the Slavic branches. But this can be inferred even from the levels of intelligibility among the modern Germanic languages and among the modern Slavic languages.
May 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM

Have I said anywhere that Proto-Slavs can or cannot be a mixture of a Baltic-like pop and early Germanics? Have I criticized anyone for making either of those statements? I have only asked a simple question: „can Proto-Slavs be a mixture of early Germanics and and a Baltic-like pop?” and have not given an answer myself. My criticism to the graph EastPole posted was because it did not make any sense to me linguistically, not because it was used to prove that Proto-Slavs cannot be a mixture of a Baltic-like pop and early Germanics. Additionally, my statement that Proto-Germans predate Proto-Slavs is the consensus view. Finally, no sane person here would talk positively about Turbo-Slav crackpots, I could not care less if my negative remarks about them would offend someone. In no way these show that I am biased against Slavs, I am only biased against stupidity. FYI, I am someone who is much more descended from Slavs than Germanics (it is even disputed if I have any Germanic ancestry at all). It is your touchy reaction to me that gives the feel of bias. Real men do not act like that.
May 14, 2021 at 11:37 PM
June 16, 2021 at 3:31 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
You made a pair with Turbogerman Małgorzata, see:
May 14, 2021 at 10:27 AM.

You complement each other perfectly in your rudeness and ignorance.

With such ‘manners’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘logic’, I would be afraid to speak in public, because someone could easily make a shashlik out of me, just like me and others have made it from you above. Sorry, not a shashlik, but a digested donner kupap.

I will not kick you because you are both already lying face down in the ground. Besides, they have already answered you there:

EastPole
@ Onur Dincer
Cannot Proto-Slavs themselves be a mixture of a Baltic-like population and early Germanics?

This is impossible:

May 13, 2021 at 2:34 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1620941698239#c3164046320145786502

ambron
Onur, I understand you’re asking in a genetic context… Theoretically, it would be possible, but then the pre-Slavs would look genetically like today’s Kashubians. Some of the pre-Slavs could actually look like Kashubians, because that was the genetic makeup of the Legedzine population, which came to Ukraine originally from northern Poland.
May 14, 2021 at 12:24 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1620977051653#c1683816449206893762

Arza said…
@ Onur Dincer
Cannot Proto-Slavs themselves be a mixture of a Baltic-like population and early Germanics?

They can’t. Basic PCA-reading skills are enough to know why.

Your graph is little different from Turbo-Slav shits. Proto-Germans obviously existed before Proto-Slavs.

You have absolutely no idea what you’ve commented on. You just made a complete fool of yourself and proved how biased you are. You don’t even know which theory this diagram illustrates, whose theory it is, why it looks like that, in whose book it was published, and why it’s a proof that Slavs are not half-Balts, half-Germanics. But you saw a giant circle with „Slavic” written in the middle and it immediately triggered you, because if it’s „Slavic” then it should be a tiny, unimportant circle somewhere in the corner.
May 14, 2021 at 9:13 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621052002850#c4556559659270220812

ambron
Onur, Kashubians are those Slavs who are at the top of the Polish cluster at the NE PCA. Of all Western Slavs, only they can be a mixture of Balts and early Germans, because they lie on the PCA between Lithuanians and the males of Kowalewko. But their genetics have nothing to do with the Middle Ages Slavic migration; it was already like that in the Iron Age, according to a study by Margaryan.
May 14, 2021 at 11:46 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621061203129#c5055477484255247722

ambron
The graphic presents the Schmidt / Lehmann wave theory, which – unlike the language tree – adequately reflects the process of Indo-European linguistic differentiation. (Schmidt is a German linguist, Slavist). And the Slavic dialects are of course much more archaic than the Germanic dialects.
May 15, 2021 at 12:08 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621062534371#c5656416586447444025

Arza
@ Onur Dincer
The consensus is that the proto-languages in the absence of written records cannot be reliably dated.

For no reason you’ve called the work of two Indo-Europeanists (Lehmann & Schmidt) and Colin Renfrew „little different from Turbo-Slav shits”.

And now you continue the trolling with „Real men do not act like that.”

EOT
May 15, 2021 at 12:13 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621062794566#c800761123071903307
June 16, 2021 at 3:34 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Onur Dincer
And here’s the answer regarding those Anatolian presumptions of yours from which you quickly run away:

Arza said…
@ Rob
There is no proof that Anatolian spit earlier, because reconstructions are not data.

prof. Gąsiorowski:
Thus, protolanguage reconstructions are not “data”. They are forever provisional and hypothetical. Using them as data is a category error.

It’s reconstructed as such, but reconstructions can differ. And they can change dramatically.

My prediction about the Anatolians was always that they were barely IE from a POV of genetics. That they were just locals from Anatolia or the Balkans, and that one day they’ll be used to undermine the steppe theory, because „everyone knows” that they are nearly synonymous with Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Archi’s prediction, if I understand correctly, is that they were Pre-Greeks. So if Archi is right, they should be quite local (as I predicted), but similar to non-IE layer (Minoan, Cycladic, whatever) in early Greeks (hence their linguistic divergence, similar case as with the divergence of Tocharian due to the contacts with Uralics, as per the newest research on this topic), and not to the pre-IE inhabitants of Anatolia.

Do you agree?

And what’s your prediction when it comes to their autosomal composition? Because Y-DNA, especially the one present also in non-IE contexts, is not everything. Yamnaya? Neolithics from Bulgaria? Can you mark a spot on the West Eurasian PCA and post it?

Re: Slavic homeland
I told you everything ~4 years ago. Balto-Slavic not-a-cline. It’s still there and it won’t go anywhere. Just check what’s on the other side, and you’ll know how far south you need to go. Helves on AG just passed this IQ test.

The only thing that changed, is that back then I thought that Baltic_BA originated in the north-east and moved into inner Carpathians in the Bronze Age. Now I know that it was the opposite. Volosovo is nearly identical to LVA_MN, so no surprises in the area between them are to be expected. Pre-Fatyanovo rolled over the supposed Slavic homeland. And what? Nothing. New samples from the Balkans/Carpathians on the other hand are packed with the „Balto-Slavic drift”…
May 14, 2021 at 8:38 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621049932749#c7367664447014159951
June 16, 2021 at 3:35 PM

Onur Dincer said…
@SKRiBHa
Get a life instead of probing my past comments and using them against me out of context. What you and many other nationalists all over the world cannot comprehend is that people can make arguments totally free from nationalist biases. When someone does exactly that and especially when those unbiased arguments happen to contradict with your biased nationalist views, in your mind you allocate such unbiased non-nationalist arguments to the nationalism that best suits your purpose. E.g., suppose there is a nationalist person from nation x and he finds the unbiased arguments of a person from nation y inconvenient for his x nationalism, too often than not the response of the nationalist person from nation x will be allocating the inconvenient but unbiased arguments of the person from nation y to y nationalism.
June 18, 2021 at 2:06 AM

SKRiBHa said…
A summary of this thread written in Polish is visible here:
https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2021/06/21/298-podsumowanie-mojej-wiedzy-o-slowianszczyznie-chorych-scytyjsko-sarmacko-tureckich-fantazjach-i-ofitzjalnych-przeciw-slowianskich-klamstwach-02/
June 22, 2021 at 1:40 AM

Jedna uwaga do wpisu “298 Podsumowanie mojej wiedzy o Słowiańszczyźnie, chorych scytyjsko-sarmacko-tureckich fantazjach i ofitzjalnych przeciw-słowiańskich kłamstwach 02

  1. Ciągle nikt Mię nie umie odpowiedzieć kto, gdzie i kiedy pierwszy zaczął budować kurhany…

    https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/index.htm#t=IV_2_KhvalynskNovodanilovka-208p.htm%23IV_2_3_Kurgansbc-3&rhtocid=_7_1_2

    IV.2.3. Kurgans
    The use of barrow burials or tumuli has been argued to appear as a local north Caucasian feature, with origin in the 5th millennium BC, and also in the southern Caucasus, with the Leilatepe culture, from where it spread north. Other barrows are later found up to north-west Iran. Although evidence is too scarce to select a precise origin, the early Khvalynsk–Novodanilovka burials, on the Pontic–Caspian steppes, are the first to feature rich, ochre-sprinkled graves under kurgan-like structures (Korenevskiy 2012).

    The addition of the tradition of ochre staining (originally from the steppes) to the emerging proto-kurgans supports that these structures emerged with the contacts of steppe cultures with the Caucasus. The standard posture on the back with knees raised, with their heads to the north and east (Anthony 2007), characteristic of Khvalynsk-type burials, point to the expansion of the Khvalynsk–Novodanilovka cultural-historical area as the starting point of this tradition in the steppes.

    All members of society are considered represented in the earliest Khvalynsk cemeteries, although there is a clear emerging trend during their expansion for elite male burials to predominate. Rich grave assemblages include stone clubs and axes, animal-head sceptres, long flint blades, and ornaments for clothing, many made of copper. These rare copper objects like rings and beads, most likely from western industries, are more common in elite male graves, as are animal sacrifices and red ochre (Murphy and Khokhlov 2016).

    The emerging kurgan structures were probably not simple pits filled with earth. There was a belief that the funerary structure was the place where the buried moved to another world, and in that sense similar funerary structures reflect certain egalitarian ideas, so the evolution from collective necropolis to the rich grave assemblages reflect the meaning of prestige objects as symbols that emphasise social status, and thus an evolution to a kinship-based, elite-dominated organisation into small families, as well as a potential function in the transition to the afterlife (Korenevskiy 2012).

    The new social elites identified themselves through grave goods and grave construction, marked the status with clothing (copper jewellery) and symbols of power (mace and sceptre). The existence of similar children’s graves supports the membership to social groups being acquired by birth. This common evolution in the whole Khvalynsk–Novodanilovka cultural-historical area supports the emergence of tightly structured elite social groups expanding from the east (Parzinger 2013).

    Ceremonial skull-scraping of the parietal bone, consisting of one to seven gouges about 2–3 cm in length in the parietal bone surface, may appear mainly in mature adults (Khokhlov 2016), with some cases clearly associated with elite burials. Zoomorphic sceptres represented probably a ritual source of power for Khvalynsk chieftains, political and/or religious leaders, as evidenced by the unique zoomorphic carving found in Ekaterinovka (a riverine settlement) in the second half of the 5th millennium, resembling a toothed fish or reptile, rather than the most common horse-related motifs expanding with Novodanilovka–Suvorovo settlers. The finding of similar elk-head staffs in Mesolithic–Neolithic cultures of northern and eastern Europe and the Trans-Urals region may suggest an ancient cultural connection of this tradition through northern Eurasia.

    Early kurgan-like or proto-kurgan constructions in the Pontic–Caspian steppes are found thus associated with the expansion of Khvalynsk–Novodanilovka chiefs, featuring similar constructions to mark elite graves: rooves made from separate slabs with cairns are known in the Dnieper and Volga regions (17% of burials in early Khvalynsk were superimposed with stone cairns or had a single stone marker); cists with cairns are known from the northern Donets and Azov areas; and a unique cromlech is found in the Dniester–Danube area, among Suvorovo graves. Apart from these stone constructions, in the Volga and northern Caucasus region sometimes natural hills or small earthen or wooden constructions are used as burial markers (Rassamakin 1999).

    Polubienie

Skomentuj

Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Google

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Facebooku

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Połączenie z %s

Ta witryna wykorzystuje usługę Akismet aby zredukować ilość spamu. Dowiedz się w jaki sposób dane w twoich komentarzach są przetwarzane.