299 Odwrócona teoria falowa – wyjaśnienie powstawania wtórnych zniekształceń / ubezdźwięcznień w językach Post-PIE / CWC i Post-CWC wg SKRiBHa

Powstanie języków Post-PIE / CWC / Od-Pra-Słowiańskich / Euro-Azjatyckich wg. teorii falowej Schmidt i Lechmann

…..

Oto oficjalnie publikuję moją „odwróconą teorię falową”. Jest to ciąg dalszy wpisów 298 i 297.

Wg Mię wyjaśnia ona powstawanie wtórnych zniekształceń / ubezdźwięcznień, jakie są widoczne / słyszalne w tzw. językach indo-europejskich, czyli językach Post-PIE, czyli języku CWC i językach pochodzących z tego języka.

Publikowałem to już w komentarzach u Mię i u Davidskiego.

W następnym wpisie ponownie opublikuję moje definicje powstawania języków PIE i Post-PIE. To też publikowałem już w komentarzach u Mię i u Davidskiego.

Niestety nikt nie był uprzejmy odnieść się do niczego, co zawarłem w tych i podobnych danych. No może nie nikt. Byli tacy i ich druzgocące Mię odpowiedzi zamieszczam poniżej do porównania…

We wpisie 301 zrobię podsumowanie tego gdzie obecnie się znajduję, co sobie myślę i co zamierzam robić z tym w przyszłości…

…..

Oto poprawiona polska wersja tekstu, którego oryginalną angielską wersję opublikowałem poniżej:

@ambron

Nie odpowiedziałeś na moje pytanie, patrz wyżej. Z logiki tego co napisałeś wcześniej wynika mniej więcej coś takiego:

Rzekomo nagle i bez żadnego powodu, jakiś np. Proto-Germanin, który sobie żył kiedyś (może 500-100BCE), gdzieś tam w jakimś Proto-Germańskim lesie zaczął sobie zmieniać dźwięki D>T, T>D, P/B>PH/PF/F, K>G/H, S>H, itp.,.. bo tak mu się podobało.

Wszyscy inni Proto-Germanie, którzy mieszkali w innych odległych Proto-Germańskich lasach za górami i rzekami, też nagle i też bez żadnego powodu, ot tak zaczęli robić dokładnie to samo.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language

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

Pewno zadziałała prastara Proto-Germańska magia i telepatia i bum! One powstały z niczego, tak jak Wszechświat!

I oto tak same z siebie pojawiły się wtórne zniekształcenia,.. dziwnie identyczne i wobec postaci PIE i Proto-Slavic, który wg niektórych ‘naukowców’ miał rzekomo powstać około 100CE (Kushniarevich), czy nawet 800CE (Curta)…

Już jest udowodnione ponad wszelką wątpliwość, że żadnej tzw. pustki osadniczej nie było nad Wisłą w 5-6wObecnie tak twierdzą już nawet przedstawiciele oficjalnej nauki prusko-nazistowskiej (allo-allo)!

Twierdzą oni jednocześnie, że Proto-Słowianie wchłonęli i zasymilowali potomków Proto-Germanów, którzy tam pozostali.

Skoro tak niby miało być, to czyż Proto-Słowianie, nie powinni byli przejąć choć części tych samych Proto-Germanic zniekształceń?

Przecież według oficjalnej prusko-nazistowskiej nauki, Proto-Słowianie rzekomo mieliby dopiero wtedy przypełznąć ze swoich pierwotnych siedzib w norach na bagien Prypeci, na tereny rzekomo zajęte wcześniej przez potomków Proto-Germanów…

Wszakże oficjalnie Słowianie wszystko co dobre zapożyczyli po potężnych Proto-Germanach, którzy jednak przecież nie w całości odeszli na południe, żeby pokonać niepokonany odwieczny starożytny Rzym

Jak to możliwe, że Słowianie, którzy rzekomo sami nie mieli nic i nic nie znali, nie przejęli od tych co pozostali najważniejszego, czyli wtórnych Proto-Germańskich zniekształceń, hm?

Jak to jest możliwe, że ciągle w j. Polskim istnieją takie oboczne słowa, jak Trzeć / TR”e+C’ i Drzeć / DR”e+C’, itd.?

Twoje powyższe twierdzenia są nielogiczne.

Twierdzę, że istnieje logiczne i proste rozwiązanie, którym jest ‘odwrócona teoria falowa’.

1.

Wszystkie ubezdźwięcznienia, tzw. centum itp. w Post-PIE / CWC były spowodowane przez podkład / substrat lub nakład / adstrat / superstrat językowy NIE. Pierwotny stan Post-PIE / CWC to oboczność dźwięków, z przewagą tzw. satem.

2.

Fale Post-PIE / CWC rozjechały się na północ > Bałtowie i Skandynawowie, wschód > Fatianovo, zachód > BB i na południe na Bałkańskie CWC. Na swojej drodze napotykały na różne NIE ludy, z haplogrupami I1, N, G, Q, C, R2, itp.

3.

To poprzez mieszanie się ludów i języków Post-PIE z NIE dochodzi do powstanie wtórnych ubezdźwięcznień, patrz:

wschód > CWC Fatianovo > Andronovo > Proto-Indo-Ariowie > Vedic Sanskrit (+H); BMAC / Yaz > Proto-Irańczycy > Avestan (+H, P/B>F, S>H) (tzw. j. tocharskie to dopiero 6-8w),

– zachód > CWC > BB > Proto-Celtowie, z których na południu od Alp powstali Proto-Italikowie (P/B>F/Q/K, D>F, itp.) i Proto-Germanie na północy, którzy zmieszali się z NIE I1.

Podobnie było z Ormianami i S/Hellenami, którzy przyjechali na rydwanach najpierw do Epiru (-W, S>H, P/B>PH/F, itp.).

4.

Języki anatolijskie jak hetycki, mogą pochodzić z Post-PIE, ale nie z CWC, ale z np. Suvorovo, Usatovo, itp., Następnie w Anatolii zmieszały się z ludami i językami NIE, jak Hatti, itp., co dało podobne wtórne zniekształcenia (rzekome laryngały), jak te wymienione powyżej.

5.

Post-PIE / CWC = Proto-Slavic.

…..

Znajdzie się śmiałek, który odważy się podważyć moją ‘odwróconą teorię falową’?

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@ambron

You have not answered my question, see above. From the ‚logic’ you presented earlier emerges something like this:

Allegedly suddenly and for no reason, a Proto-German chap who lived once (maybe 500-100BCE), somewhere in a Proto-Germanic forest began to change sounds D>T, T>D, P/B>PH/PF/F, K>G/H, S>H, etc… because he liked it so much.

All the other Proto-Germans who lived in the other remote Proto-Germanic forests beyond the mountains and rivers, suddenly and for no reason at all, started doing exactly the same thing too.

/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age
/wiki/Germanic_parent_language
/Proto-Germanic_language
/wiki/Grimm%27s_law

Ancient Proto-Germanic magic and telepathy must have worked and kaboom!

They came into existence from nothing, just like the Universe! 🙂

And this is how secondary distortions appeared on their own,.. being strangely identical to the characters of PIE and Proto-Slavic, which, according to some ‚scientists’, was supposed to form around 100CE (Kushniarevich), or even 800CE (Curta)…

It is already proven beyond any doubt that there was no so-called settlement emptiness / Siedlungsleere on the region of Vistula River in 5-6 century.

Nowadays, even the representatives of the Prussian-Nazi ‘science’ have claimed so.

They also claim that the Proto-Slavs absorbed and assimilated the descendants of the Proto-Germans who remained there.

If this was supposed to be the case, then shouldn’t the Proto-Slavs have borrowed at least some of the same Proto-Germanic distortions?

After all, according to official Prussian-Nazi science, the Proto-Slavs would allegedly only crawl from their original habitats located in dens of the Pripyat swamps, to the areas previously occupied by the descendants of Proto-Germans…

After all, officially the Slavs borrowed everything good after and from the mighty Proto-Germans, who, however, did not entirely depart south to defeat the invincible ancient Rome…

How is it possible that the Proto-Slavs, who allegedly knew and had nothing on their own, did not borrow from the ones who remained the most important, that is, the secondary Proto-Germanic distortions, hm?

How is it possible that in Polish there are still such alternated words as Trzeć/ TR”eC’ and Drzeć / DR”eC’, etc.?

Your above claims are illogical. I argue that there is a logical and simple solution which is the reverse wave theory’.

1. All secondary devoicing / so-called centum, etc., in Post-PIE CWC was caused by substrate or NIE adstrat / superstrate. The primary Post-PIE / CWC state was the alternation of sounds, with a predominance of the so-called satem.

2. Post-PIE CWC waves went east > Fatianovo, west > BB and south > Balkan CWC. On their way, they encountered various NIE peoples, with haplogroups I1, N, G, Q, C, R2, etc.

3. It is through the mixing of the Post-PIE with NIE peoples and languages, all secondary devoicings were formed, see:

– east > CWC Fatianovo > Andronovo > Proto-Indo-Aryans > Vedic Sanskrit (+H); BMAC / Yaz > Proto-Iranians > Avestan (+H, P/B>F, S>H); (the so-called Tocharian language was atested from only 6-8 century),
– west > CWC > BB > Proto-Celts of which the Proto-Italics were formed to the south of the Alps (P/B>F/Q/K, D>F, etc.) and the Proto-Germans were formed in the north of them (D>T, T>D, P/B>PH/PF/F, K>G/H, S>H, etc.), who mixed with NIE I1.

It was similar with the Proto-Armenians and the Proto-Hellenes who came on chariots first to Epirus (-W, S>H>?, P/B>PH/F, etc.).

4. Anatolian languages like Hittite may come from Post-PIE other than CWC e.g. Suvorovo, Usatovo, etc,. Then in Anatolia they mixed with NIE peoples and languages like Hattic or Hurrian etc., which gave similar secondary distortions (alleged so-called laryngals) like the ones mentioned above.

…..

Will there be a daredevil who dares to challenge my ‘reverse wave theory’?

September 26, 2021 at 7:28 AM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@ambron
I just don’t know where the opinion came from that the centum is a primary Proto-Indo-European condition and that satem is an innovation. Academic linguistic textbooks say the opposite: satem is a continuation of the Proto-Indo-European condition, and the centum is innovation.

This is the first time I have heard of something like this! Can you provide a quote that confirms this and its source, please?

Officially, the alleged original state of the so-called PIE was supposedly to look like described here:

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

Of course, these are only mutually contradictory presumptions.

I argue that logic and evidence show that there was an alternation of the stems / roots in the Post-PIE CWC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_(linguistics)
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternacja_(j%C4%99zykoznawstwo)

Unfortunately, some of the examples visible there are examples of the so-called apophony:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophony
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeg%C5%82os

September 17, 2021 at 10:29 AM

…..

ambron said…

I just don’t know where the opinion came from that the centum is a primary Proto-Indo-European condition and that satem is an innovation. Academic linguistic textbooks say the opposite: satem is a continuation of the Proto-Indo-European condition, and the centum is innovation.

September 16, 2021 at 10:51 PM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

ambron said…
(…) Skribha, we live in a cause and effect reality, so obviously every effect has a cause. (…)

It is nice that we agree on this problem.

(…) However, if we do not know the cause of a phenomenon, why discuss it? (…)

I do not know,.. maybe to try to understand and explain it? You are joking at me, aren’t you?

(…) For example, what was the cause of the centum’s innovations? (…)

It is nice you just asked about that. The explanation of the so-called ‚centum’s innovations’ is trivial and logical. Although the so-called the cenum has officially supposed to be the original PIE state, while CWC is already Post-PIE …

Something does not add up here, does it? Do you see that there is an abyss lurking in your question that undermines the foundations of the Prussian-Nazi ‘science’ of the PIE? 🙂
Analyze the formation of the CWC and its expansion east / north, west and south, please.

The data logically indicate that the CWC from the beginning of its formation in Małopolska and further south, MUST have been so-called satem (or rather alternate). This is proved by the so-called satem and the eastern CWC Fatianovo > Proto-Indo-Iranians, the northern CWC > Proto-Balts, as well as the central CWC from Małopolska / Lesser Poland > Proto-Slavs, but for BMAC / Yaz there was virtually no mixing with NO peoples, see:

(…)
2. Yes, the Sintashta population and all closely related populations were very homogeneous, apart from clear outliers who didn’t have any noticeable impact on the main Sintashta cluster.
(…)
3. I don’t understand the question. Obviously, Fatyanovo and Sintashta didn’t have any Asian admixture, unless you mean their Anatolian farmer ancestry.
(…)

Davidski May 6, 2021 at 6:25 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-history-of-scythians-gnecchi.html?showComment=1620307540013#c9017677983718665569

West CWC > BB > Proto-Celts (+I1) > Proto Germans and South CWC> Proto-Hellenes mixed with NIE peoples and this caused secondary devoices that are perfectly visible and audible everywhere in the CWC periphery!

This is exactly the opposite of what Schmidt claimed. I will describe it to you in more detail until evening.

September 16, 2021 at 4:14 PM

…..

ambron said…

Skribha, we live in a cause and effect reality, so obviously every effect has a cause. However, if we do not know the cause of a phenomenon, why discuss it? For example, what was the cause of the centum’s innovations?

September 15, 2021 at 11:48 PM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@ambron
Skribha, innovations may occur for no reason, or they may be the result of a substrate or a superstrate. It does not matter.

Well, logic does matter, but I do not see it here. Things do not happen without a reason. You may not see, know, or understand the reason, but it always exists.

The very fact of innovation and isoglosses spreading is important. The isoglosses spread out like a wave, which is what Schmidt’s wave theory says.

OK, but what if Schmidt was partially wrong and ‚innovation centers’ form at the point where waves overlap, see e.g. IE or NIE substrate + NIE or IE adstrate / superstrate?

In the next post I will describe how it could possibly have worked.

The Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages differ precisely because innovation centers have emerged in the CWC’s horizon – including Germanic, Slavic and Baltic centers.

What supposed to be the original ‚CWC’s horizon innovation’, if not the so-called satem, see East CWC Fatianovo > Indo-Aryans and Central CWC which has never moved out of Lesser Poland > Proto-Slavs?

Why is there not the same ‚CWC’s horizon innovation’ found in Proto-Germanic?

Logically, it had to disappear in Proto-Germanic, because CWC>BB mixed with NIE I1… By the way, you shall not forget about an alternation of sounds still present, for example, in Polish…

Speaking of the joint inhabitation of the lands by the Slavs and the Germans, I meant the Germans as newcomers, and the Slavs as local. And genetics simply shows the biological continuity of the Polish population in paternal and maternal lineages, lactase persistence alleles and IBD segments.

You mix events separated by thousands of years, see CWC in Małopolska 4900 years ago and the beginnings of settlement and germanisation there 700 years ago.

September 15, 2021 at 2:01 PM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@Dranoel
I would like to sincerely apologise to you because I wrote the untruth by mistake! Shame to me. I mean this sentence:

‘The fact is, apart from expressing it, that you have not put forward anything to support it. I understand that it is safer for you because you have no arguments, and what Prussian-Nazi science has established is sacred to you.’

Sorry, but because of rush I did not go through the ‚arguments’ you wrote below, see:

(…) This film (based on authentic facts) was read from peleolithic tablets – the action takes place near Warsaw in Poland. The Slavs fight the natives for the land. It’s true, I promise !!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2bgeq6hAlU (…)

I understand that this is all you can ‘argue’ with me. It is obvious you did not understand anything of what I wrote before, see:

(…) It seems that geniuses like you do not understand that the so-called ‘Turboslavism’ is a propaganda concept that is entirely based on a reinterpretation and criticism of the so-called historical sources / chronicles.

‘Turboslavism’ has never had and still has nothing to do with genetics, much less linguistics. It is only and solely an interpretation (and its criticism) of historical written texts and one painting hanging in the Dominican monastery in Jasna Góra.

Many different people brought up on Prussian-Nazi lies and propaganda, such as you, are clearly lost and throw into one bag everything that they associate with Slavdom, Slavs and Slavic languages. (…)

So this time shame to you… because your ‘scientific arguments’ are truly lame again.

September 15, 2021 at 5:34 AM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@Dranoel
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. The fact is, apart from expressing it, that you have not put forward anything to support it. I understand that it is safer for you because you have no arguments, and what Prussian-Nazi science has established is sacred to you. I would also like to have such fanatic faith in what the ancestors and descendants of Bismark and his colleagues established in the 19th and 20th centuries, for example at Humbolt University.

I understand that what I wrote about the Prussian-Nazi science hurt you. Indeed, logic and truth can be somethimes painful.

Can you prove where I wrote the untruth? Do not be afraid and try it. I will not shoot you for disagreeing with me. 🙂

September 15, 2021 at 2:16 AM

…..

ambron said…

Dranoel, you present a high level of personal culture and it is pure pleasure to discuss with you.

So, if I were to clarify, the combined multidisciplinary data suggests rather such a scenario that the Balto-Slavic post-CWC horizon reached quite far to the west – maybe even to the Elbe. On the other hand, the Germanic ethnos took shape somewhere further west / northwest. In turn, in the Iron Age, the Germanic tribes settled on Polish lands in the vicinity of the indigenous Balto-Slavic population, forming tribal confederations with them.

The Germans had such traditions that part of the clan left their homeland, which prevented food shortages. In the draw was decided on who had to leave the homeland.

September 14, 2021 at 11:56 PM

…..

Dranoel said…

@ Ambron

Yeah. So we’re basically talking about the same thing. The population living in eastern and western Poland could have had a completely different „base”, and somewhere between them there was a „line of contact”. And referring to my previous statements, I believe that Y5587 / PH2147 is related to its western part.

@ SKRiBHa

I thought for a long time whether to answer you or not. I will be sparing in words, because after reading your blog, I find that we have absolutely nothing to talk about. You are a simpleton and a fanatic who offends everyone around you who have a different opinion. Your statements are steeped in fairy tales and should not be displayed on this forum because they spoil it. I will not comment on references to Adolf H. etc. at all. The administrator should punish you for this rudeness.

@ VasiSTha

I think we should all „ignore” SKRiBH – such trolls live off stupid and insulting statements.

@ all
Mr. SKRiBHa should pay attention to this. This film (based on authentic facts) was read from peleolithic tablets – the action takes place near Warsaw in Poland. The Slavs fight the natives for the land. It’s true, I promise !!!

September 14, 2021 at 3:53 PM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@vAsiSTha
(…) I never claimed anything about poles (lol). I never claimed that slavs genetically derive from sarmatians or Alans. (…)

Where did I allegedly claim you claimed the above? I only quoted Davidski’s claims confirming that Poles, and more broadly Slavs, do not come from Iranian peoples, such as the Scythians or Sarmatians, etc.

Some ‘scientists’ claimed and still have claimed otherwise, but they are wrong, see also below.

(…) Please try to comprehend and use your brains more rather than typing long rambling shit which noone reads. (…)

This is logically untrue as you have just responded to what I wrote, so you must read it. LOL 🙂

(…) Just like English has made a decent language impact on India without any genetic contribution during the British rule, similarly the centuries long rule of scythians sarmatians and Alans has left an impact on the slavic languages at the proto slavic stage, so much so that some linguists claim that even the partly satem nature of slavic and the ruki law is due to iranian influence. (…)

When and where did the ‚the centuries long rule of scythians sarmatians and Alans has left an impact on the slavic languages at the proto slavic stage’ allegedly occured? Any evidence for this?

By the way, according to this ‚logic’, the English would also have had an influence on the language of the Vedas … LOL! 🙂

Many ‚scientists’ claimed and still have claimed all sorts of things, see e.g. glottochronology and its ‚dating’ of Proto-Slavic origin, etc. Once upon a time ‚scientists’ claimed that the earth was flat and all good things came to us from the east, etc… They were wrong. 🙂

(…) The extent of the influence can be debated but nuts like you cannot get away with claiming that there’s no influence at all. Just google ‚iranian loanwords in slavic’ and start your journey from there. (…)

Be a hero, try to give and defend at least one such example! I will give you a hint. Try the word Bóg / Bo’G, which is officially supposed to be an Iranian borrowing from Bhaga / BHaGa. I bet you will play chicken and fly away as usual…

(…) As far as the ‚creation’ of R1a in India goes, i have never claimed it because there’s no data. I challenge you to show me where I have claimed such a thing. (…)

Where did I allegedly claim you claimed the above? Learn to read and understand, see:

‘The dating of the alleged formation of Proto-Slavic, which you ‚proved’ on the basis of the ‚data’ of the ‚science’, called glottochronology, is ‘as true’ as the ravings of other Hindutva / Hindu nationalists such as Nirjhar007 and others, such as the alleged formation of R1a in India about 7,000, 15,000 or even 45,000 years ago, or creation of the Vedas by Harappans who were Dravidian-speaking people, etc. LOL!’

(…) As far as the Vedas go, they were definitely not composed on the steppe, the geography of the Vedas is extremely clear and it is squarely in modern NW india and pakistan and absolutely nowhere else. (…)

Am I saying that it was so or not? Where? The fact is that the English who ruled India for several hundred years had no influence on the language of the Vedas. 🙂

September 14, 2021 at 12:34 AM

…..

ambron said…

Skribha, innovations may occur for no reason, or they may be the result of a substrate or a superstrate. It does not matter. The very fact of innovation and isoglosses spreading is important. The isoglosses spread out like a wave, which is what Schmidt’s wave theory says.

The Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages differ precisely because innovation centers have emerged in the CWC’s horizon – including Germanic, Slavic and Baltic centers.

Speaking of the joint inhabitation of the lands by the Slavs and the Germans, I meant the Germans as newcomers, and the Slavs as local. And genetics simply shows the biological continuity of the Polish population in paternal and maternal lineages, lactase persistence alleles and IBD segments.

September 13, 2021 at 11:09 AM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@ambron
The nineteenth-century notion of a linguistic division is an anachronism. Of course, there have been incidents in the history of the Indo-European language when some dialect group migrated long distances and lost contact with the linguistic matrix. But those were just incidents – and linguistic differentiation doesn’t work that way in everyday life.

Well, you have not answered some of my questions, see:

1.
Do you claim that the so-called glottochronology is a science as reliable as mathematics?

2.
Have you ever thought what caused the different IE languages to differentiate one from another, see e.g. Germanic, Baltic and Slavic?

3.
What do you think triggered these changes, e.g. those described by the Rask / Grimm / Verner laws?

(…) Typically, innovation centers are formed from which isoglosses diverge. Innovation gradually builds up, making dialects near the center of innovation incomprehensible to dialects outside the range of isoglosses. At this point, nearby dialects can converge to form a koine that differs significantly from more distant dialects. (…)

And what if it is exactly opposite, see Schmidt’s wave theory?

Logic dictates that e.g. devoicing +H or S>H>? is a process that arises in exactly the opposite way to the one described above and has to do with the mixing of languages / peoples, see eg substrate, adstrate / superstrate.

It has to do with genes and it should be clearly visible. And that is what it is, see for example CWC > Fatianovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Indo-Arians, while BMAC / Yaz > Iranians.

The same goes for Proto-Germans who were a mixture of CWC > BB R1b + I1.

The Proto-Slavic marker is R1a Z282, isn’t it? Can I1 be considered a Proto-Germanic marker? 🙂

September 13, 2021 at 6:42 AM

…..

vAsiSTha said…

@skribha

I hope to dear God that you have some iota of intelligence in your head.

I never claimed anything about poles (lol). I never claimed that slavs genetically derive from sarmatians or Alans. Please try to comprehend and use your brains more rather than typing long rambling shit which noone reads.

Just like English has made a decent language impact on India without any genetic contribution during the British rule, similarly the centuries long rule of scythians sarmatians and Alans has left an impact on the slavic languages at the proto slavic stage, so much so that some linguists claim that even the partly satem nature of slavic and the ruki law is due to iranian influence. The extent of the influence can be debated but nuts like you cannot get away with claiming that there’s no influence at all. Just google ‚iranian loanwords in slavic’ and start your journey from there.

As far as the ‚creation’ of R1a in India goes, i have never claimed it because there’s no data. I challenge you to show me where I have claimed such a thing.

As far as the Vedas go, they were definitely not composed on the steppe, the geography of the Vedas is extremely clear and it is squarely in modern NW india and pakistan and absolutely nowhere else.

This is my last reply to you, don’t find you worthwhile wasting my time.

September 13, 2021 at 6:08 AM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@Slumbery
Actually languages change by themselves all the time. It is pretty much business as usual. Of course various outside influences effect them, sometimes quite substantially, but assuming that there must be a special reason behind every change is wrong on principle.

What do you think triggered these changes, e.g. those described by the Rask / Grimm / Verner laws?

Ambron claims that allegedly:

(…) The supporters of the Central European autochtonus Slavs do not deny that the Germans were here. They only argue that these lands were inhabited jointly by Slavs and Germans. And this is what genetics confirm, among others in the old paternal lines. But not only, but also in maternal lines, lactase persistence alleles and IBD segments. (…)

I do not know how genetics allegedly proves it (and I would like to read something about it), but the facts are as follows:

According to this ‚logic’, the Proto-Slavic should have developped the same or very similar distortions as the Proto-Germanic. According to some virtuosos of logic, Proto-Slavic is supposed to be much younger than Proto-Germanic.

The problem is that even in the officially restored Proto-Slavic, there are no such distortions! 🙂

This clearly indicates that the above statements are not supported by logic and facts, i.e. they are untrue. 🙂

September 13, 2021 at 5:41 AM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@vAsiSTha
Do not reference me anymore in your comments you hack.

Can you be logical at all and write something meaningful? Which comments have I allegedly ‚hacked’? You mean the quotes from your nonsensical scribbles?

I see the truth has hurt you and now you are sitting in the corner and crying facing the wall. You are as pathetic as what you write. You have no arguments and you get logically beaten up like a child.

The dating of the alleged formation of Proto-Slavic, which you ‚proved’ on the basis of the ‚data’ of the ‚science’, called glottochronology, is ‘as true’ as the ravings of other Hindutva / Hindu nationalists such as Nirjhar007 and others, such as the alleged formation of R1a in India about 7,000, 15,000 or even 45,000 years ago, or creation of the Vedas by Harappans who were Dravidian-speaking people, etc. LOL!

This in a genetics blog, not for linguistics. You can create linguistic myth in your own blog; with proto slavic born in 3000bce and free from every external influence so far, the purest of them all.

You are clumsily lying and manipulating because you are just a lazy intellectual coward. Here you have a discussion about the alleged origin of the Pre-Slavs from the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc:

(…)
3. CWC R1a comes from somewhere on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

4. The so called Asian R1a, which is Z93, is from the part of the CWC that Fatyanovo came from, wherever that was, maybe the eastern Carpathian region.

5. The R1a in Scythians is from the CWC.

6. Poles don’t derive from Sarmatians, and don’t even have any significant ancestry from them or similar populations.

April 30, 2021 at 11:59 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-history-of-scythians-gnecchi.html?showComment=1619852360520#c7773014023967968824

Before you write anything as ‚smart’ as always, educate yourself. Be careful because this is Davidski’s quote!

September 13, 2021 at 4:39 AM

…..

EastPole said…

@Slumbery
„Actually languages change by themselves all the time. It is pretty much business as usual. Of course various outside influences effect them, sometimes quite substantially, but assuming that there must be a special reason behind every change is wrong on principle.”

Yes, languages change all the time. But if there is no special reason for a change they change very slowly. It is proven that if there are no external influences, like mixing of populations, religion change, etc. the rate of change can be as slow as 1-2% per 1000 years.

What is special about Slavic languages?

They have been changing very, very slowly and there is a lot of evidence for it. One cannot compare Slavic languages to Italic, Celtic or Germanic languages. Nothing certain is known about the history of these languages. There are some few centuries BC old inscriptions with strange words which some linguists try to reconstruct as Germanic, Celtic or Italic. It is all speculation. Nothing is certain. In the case of Slavic we have hundreds or maybe thousands of such words which do not need any reconstructions because they are identical to modern words, we have whole sentences which we can understand, well preserved in the most archaic Vedic language.

Migrations to India occurred well before 1500 BC because after that date Central Asia was dominated by East Asian tribes, not present in India. The ancestors of the tribes which migrated to India around 2000 BC were in the Vistula-Dnieper area around 3000 BC and their Indo-Slavic language was for sure much more similar to Slavic than Vedic Sanskrit was. Slavic folk stories can explain fragments of Rigveda, many Vedic words, including the names of Vedic gods, have Slavic etymology, etc.

It is all simple and obvious for people who are interested but many people have no clue about it. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, the construction of world history has been dominated by western Europe, following their presence in the rest of the world as the result of colonial conquest and the Industrial Revolution. Now it turns out that a lot of what they produced was forgery and manipulation.

There are many questions about how history was written. For example interesting series of articles about Roman antiquity and how western Europeans tried to eliminate eastern European Byzantium from history:

https://www.unz.com/author/first-millennium-revisionist/

Even the history of Latin is questioned:

https://www.unz.com/article/how-fake-is-roman-antiquity/#the-mysterious-origin-of-latin

A lot of effort has been put into falsifying linguistic and cultural history of Slavic people and to eliminate them from history. But they failed.

September 13, 2021 at 2:32 AM

…..

ambron said…

Skribha, Slumbery is right to say.

The nineteenth-century notion of a linguistic division is an anachronism. Of course, there have been incidents in the history of the Indo-European language when some dialect group migrated long distances and lost contact with the linguistic matrix. But those were just incidents – and linguistic differentiation doesn’t work that way in everyday life. Typically, innovation centers are formed from which isoglosses diverge. Innovation gradually builds up, making dialects near the center of innovation incomprehensible to dialects outside the range of isoglosses. At this point, nearby dialects can converge to form a koine that differs significantly from more distant dialects.

September 12, 2021 at 11:50 PM

…..

vAsiSTha said…

@skribha

Do not reference me anymore in your comments you hack. This in a genetics blog, not for linguistics. You can create linguistic myth in your own blog; with proto slavic born in 3000bce and free from every external influence so far, the purest of them all.

September 12, 2021 at 10:17 PM

…..

Slumbery said…

@SKRiBHa

Actually languages change by themselves all the time. It is pretty much business as usual. Of course various outside influences effect them, sometimes quite substantially, but assuming that there must be a special reason behind every change is wrong on principle.

September 12, 2021 at 8:55 PM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@ambron
EastPole, linguistic dating must always be approached with a wide margin of confidence.

Can you explain more precisely what you mean here?
Do you claim that the so-called glottochronology is a science as reliable as mathematics?

@vAsiSTha thoughtlessly referred to the results of this ‚science’, received my answers and somehow did not have the courage to defend his thesis afterwards, see:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/08/r1a-vs-r1b-in-third-millennium-bce.html?showComment=1630775892313#c1681604490562038116

September 4, 2021 at 10:18 AM
September 5, 2021 at 5:22 AM
September 5, 2021 at 2:07 PM

Contemporary linguists like Babik teach us that linguistic differentiation is a long process. Specific Slavic and Baltic innovations might have arisen a long time ago, but their layering took a long time before the Slavic and Baltic dialects became completely incomprehensible to each other.

Have you ever thought what caused the different IE languages to differentiate one from another, see e.g. Germanic, Baltic and Slavic? Do you think they somehow changed by themselves?

What do you think triggered these changes, e.g. those described by the Rask / Grimm / Verner laws? Do you think that it was done by the wicked and sneaky red hat dwarfs / wee folks? 😉

September 12, 2021 at 1:25 PM

…..

ambron said…

Dranoel, Kostrzewski’s autochthonous theory is younger than Kossinna’s allochthonous theory. Both of these nationalist theories are outdated. Nevertheless, the essence of both concepts is still valid in science.

The supporters of the Central European autochtonus Slavs do not deny that the Germans were here. They only argue that these lands were inhabited jointly by Slavs and Germans. And this is what genetics confirm, among others in the old paternal lines. But not only, but also in maternal lines, lactase persistence alleles and IBD segments.

September 12, 2021 at 8:26 AM

…..

SKRiBHa said…

@Dranoel
(…) So far, however, it all seems to me to be the theory of „Great Lechia” or other „TURBOSLAVANS”. They have always been, from the Oder River to the steppes, and everyone was afraid of them. (…)

It seems that your knowledge on this subject is not really profound.

It seems that geniuses like you do not understand that the so-called ‘Turboslavism’ is a propaganda concept that is entirely based on a reinterpretation and criticism of the so-called historical sources / chronicles.

‘Turboslavism’ has never had and still has nothing to do with genetics, much less linguistics. It is only and solely an interpretation (and its criticism) of historical written texts and one painting hanging in the Dominican monastery in Jasna Góra.

Many different people brought up on Prussian-Nazi lies and propaganda, such as you, are clearly lost and throw into one bag everything that they associate with Slavdom, Slavs and Slavic languages.

Well done! Gustaf K., Adolf H., Joseph G. and their „Aryan” colleagues must be really proud of all of you!

September 12, 2021 at 8:13 AM

…..

Dranoel said…

@ Ambron

Of course, „the big lechia and the turbo slavs” are just a caricature. Indeed, for many years there has been an argument about both of these concepts. However, the autochthonous concept is rather obsolete and hardly anyone believes in it. Kostrzewski forcefully tried to introduce it in a nationalistic way. In Polish science, it is rather a reason for jokes.

But it is not excluded that „part” of the Slavic homeland was indeed part of the Lusatian culture. At the same time, the term „Lusatian culture” is not correct, because it is a large area, probably of different peoples, which were characterized by certain similarities. The Lusatian culture, in the areas of the old tumulus (pre-Lusatian) culture, surely has a different origin, also genetic, etc., than the eastern circle. So, for example, to the west of the Vistula, peoples similar to the Germanic could have formed, and to the east – to the Slavic ones. But this does not change the fact that we cannot say that „Lusatian culture was Slavic”.

As for the settlement gap during the migration of peoples – indeed, more and more archaeological research (especially in the construction of highways) proves that there was no complete „gap”. The population decreased significantly, but still remained relatively numerous in the main settlement networks. BUT this does not prove the presence of the Slavs, but rather the presence of the Germanic people who did not take part in the migration of peoples. This is exactly what the archaeological research shows.

Maybe this is where the Western Slavs differ from the Eastern and Southern Slavs? Because in the west they mingled with a fairly large (relatively) Germanic group that remained here. In this case, we can speak of „slaving” the other peoples here. If there were more Slavs, it is also obvious that they imposed their culture (and after germaniums we can see some „influences” in ornamentation, ceramics, etc.). This may create the appearance of „the former presence of Slavs and the transition from the Przeworsk culture to the Slavic states of the early Middle Ages”. As you know, this is not true.

And here, returning to the topic of Y5587 that we discussed with Leonidas D – in my opinion Y5587 / PH2147 / By593 / FGC43625 etc. correlate well with dates and known historical events. I believe that these are people who have been here for a long time (Bronze Age?) And have not left this area during the migration of peoples.

* I note that I am not talking about Y5586, which is also under Y5587

September 12, 2021 at 3:20 AM

…..

ambron said…

Rob, this is not my thesis, but a scientific theory with a very strong foundation in Russian and Polish science.

And you are mistakenly treating linguists, because the Slavic problem is a linguistic problem, not another one. And the area of the Kiev culture has almost no Slavic hydronymy, but it abounds in Baltic, Iranian and Finnish.

September 12, 2021 at 1:35 AM

…..

ambron said…

Rob, do not be offended, because I am not saying this to you, but there is a joke in Polish science that there is indeed a gap, but only in the heads of the supporters of the Pripyat theory.

All possible data (archaeological, palynological, linguistic, genetic) clearly confirm that there was no gap.

September 11, 2021 at 11:58 PM

…..

ambron said…

Dranoel, the Slavic problem is only a linguistic problem, as is the case with any ethnolinguistic group.

Let me remind you that there have always been two concepts of the origin of the Slavs – Central European (autochthonous) and Dniepern (allochthonous). So there is no need to pin this first theory of the label of Great Lechia or the Turboslovians.

September 11, 2021 at 11:42 PM

…..

Dranoel said…

@ ambron

So you think that this is the homeland of the Slavs?

I do not know if any research currently indicates this. Neither archeology nor history takes anything like this seriously. A piece of eastern or SE Poland maybe, but not western Poland.

@ Leonidas D

Let’s not spoil this blog. I have said what my opinion is, I have given numerous arguments. And you? What do you base your theory on? What does this indicate? I am not a fanatic and if you have something wise to say, I would love to hear you.

So far, however, it all seems to me to be the theory of „Great Lechia” or other „TURBOSLAVANS”. They have always been, from the Oder River to the steppes, and everyone was afraid of them.

Besides, in history, archeology, etc., nothing is obvious. On the contrary, everything is more or less presumed. So I’m waiting for you to explain how Y5587 became the Slavic determinant of expansion.

September 11, 2021 at 4:41 PM

…..

Slumbery said…

@EastPole

Very interesting. So early Alans had very little R1a, late Alans had more R1a, and Ossetians, who are the only proof that Alans were Iranians, don’t have any R1a at all.
Looking at the PCA Alans most likely came from Iran. Have nothing to do with old “Indo-Iranians” of Sintashta.

There are several outliers that plot quite the opposite direction from the Caucasus than Iran. Such population is not necessarily from Iran, there is another possibility: South Central Asia – Turan. At that time a steppe group from there could be very Iranian-like at first glance. In fact there is a theory that identifies Alans with the Yancai (奄蔡) people of Chienese sources and the Chinese sources lists them as a vassal of the Sogdians. That would place them quite south, in a region where very Iranian like populations are possible before Turkic and Mongolic movements.

BTW, most of the „R1” in the early samples could be unresolved R1a and then the difference between early and late samples not that big in this regard at least.

September 11, 2021 at 9:49 AM

…..

ambron said…

Simon, and why would the Goths interfere with the spread of the Slavs? On the contrary – the Goths could have been the driving force behind the spread of the Slavs. This model confirms it well:

Target: UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Distance: 2.4591% / 0.02459127 | ADC: 0.5x
77.8 Polish
13.0 German
4.6 Tajik_Shugnan
3.8 Estonian
0.8 Karelian

September 11, 2021 at 8:41 AM

…..

ambron said…

Dranoel, the area with the highest concentration of the old Slavic toponymy is the area between the Oder and the Vistula. So, somewhere in this area, the places earliest were given Slavic names.

September 11, 2021 at 8:33 AM

…..

ambron said…

EastPole, linguistic dating must always be approached with a wide margin of confidence. Contemporary linguists like Babik teach us that linguistic differentiation is a long process. Specific Slavic and Baltic innovations might have arisen a long time ago, but their layering took a long time before the Slavic and Baltic dialects became completely incomprehensible to each other.

September 11, 2021 at 8:11 AM

…..

Simon_W said…

@ambron

„In the first stage, the Slavs spread along with the expansion of Przeworsk, Wielbark and Cherniakhov culture”

And where do you place the Goths, the Vandals and the Burgundians in that picture? In the Jastorf culture firmly to the west of the Oder-Neisse-line? Didn’t the Goths migrate along the Vistula to the Ukraine, along with the Wielbark culture that gave rise to the Cherniakhov culture?

September 10, 2021 at 11:39 PM

…..

Dranoel said…

@ Ambron

The vast majority of sources as well as historical / archaeological evidence locate the alleged homeland of the Slavs, at least east of the Vistula. I am not talking about it and I am not questioning anything.

I am writing only about Z2103 – Y5587 – PH2147 and younger as a group typical for Central Europe, and more specifically for the Czech Republic and Poland west / west of the Vistula. This blog has covered this topic many times. This is not a primary area for Slavic genesis. So you cannot call Y5587 (or the whole Y5587) as Slavic because it couldn’t be.

@ Leonidas D

In my statements it was not about changing the subject, but only about „correcting” the issue of Y5587. That’s all. Analyzing contemporary SNPs, it can be seen that people below PH2147 in this region are not very common, and as they are, they are contemporary migrants from Central Europe.

My statement did not concern Y5586 which is more eastern.

September 10, 2021 at 4:22 PM

…..

EastPole said…

@ambron

“EastPole, we still had the Balto-Slavic stage on the way.

Therefore, the closest to the truth are probably Russian scientists (including geneticists) who claim that the ethnogenesis of the Slavs took place somewhere in the Przeworsk culture. In the first stage, the Slavs spread along with the expansion of Przeworsk, Wielbark and Cherniakhov culture, and in the second stage they migrated in small groups from different places in all directions.”

Ambron, I think you are confused. From Przeworsk some Lechitic tribes could have originated. Slavic ethnogenesis took place thousands of years earlier. From your forum:

https://slawomirambroziak.pl/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5241.0;attach=1948;image

@Arza
„Ancient DNA analysis of Early Medieval Alan populations of the North Caucasus”

Poster [PDF]:

https://ru.files.fm/f/cr8jnmqhp

Very interesting. So early Alans had very little R1a, late Alans had more R1a, and Ossetians, who are the only proof that Alans were Iranians, don’t have any R1a at all. Looking at the PCA Alans most likely came from Iran. Have nothing to do with old “Indo-Iranians” of Sintashta.

September 10, 2021 at 2:27 PM

…..

ambron said…

EastPole, we still had the Balto-Slavic stage on the way.

Therefore, the closest to the truth are probably Russian scientists (including geneticists) who claim that the ethnogenesis of the Slavs took place somewhere in the Przeworsk culture. In the first stage, the Slavs spread along with the expansion of Przeworsk, Wielbark and Cherniakhov culture, and in the second stage they migrated in small groups from different places in all directions.

September 10, 2021 at 6:46 AM

…..

EastPole said…

@ambron

„old Slavic Central European paternal lines justify the fact that the Slavs live in Central Europe from the beginning of their ethnogenesis.”

Ethnogenesis of the Slavs started after separation from that line of Indo-Slavs which migrated to Asia dominated by R1a-Z93. But in the beginning population autosomaly was much more diverse. So we have to go by paternal lines to look for Slavs. Before convergence process reduced autosomal variability of Slavic speakers to modern pattern Slavs could be found any place within dashed line or maybe even outside:

https://postimg.cc/K4tGtRTL

I am very interested where Nitra group will be located.

September 10, 2021 at 1:27 AM

…..

ambron said…

Dranoel, old Slavic Central European paternal lines justify the fact that the Slavs live in Central Europe from the beginning of their ethnogenesis.

September 9, 2021 at 11:22 PM

…..

Dranoel said…

@ Leonidas D

You are talking about „Slavic” in an archaeological / cultural sense, so I will answer in a nutshell – no, Y5587 cannot be considered Slavic.

Look at Y tree. Y5587 / PH2147 and Y5587 / Y5586 split up a long time ago. From then on, Y5586 becomes local to Europe E, while PH2147 is local to Central Europe. Everything happens long before any Slavs. We know Y5586 from Sarmatian or Alanian samples, so maybe these snp and younger were later absorbed by groups of Slavs.

PH2147 and its younger SNP in my opinion were slaved after the arrival of the Slavs to this part of Europe, so PH2147, By593 and FGC43625 were culturally not related to the Slavs at first.

September 9, 2021 at 12:27 PM

…..

ambron said…

Leonidas, right! You can also give an analogy here with the M458 / L1029 lines, which will be archaeologically related to Celtic cultures (Hallstatt, La Tiene), which does not change the fact that these are typically Slavic paternal lines. Simply changing the archaeological culture (and even changing ethnicity) does not imply a biological exchange of the population.

September 9, 2021 at 7:05 AM

…..

Leonidas D said…

@ Dranoel

I’m not sure what you are trying to say, as you have contradicted yourself several times in your own post:

„If I can cut in – calling Y5587 typically Slavic is not correct.”

„we can say that Y5587-PH2147 is „Slavic” if we think about the fact that today it is most common in countries with a Slavic language (Poland and the Czech Republic)”

„we absolutely cannot say that this is the Y DNA of the ancient Slavs”

„If you don’t want to call Y5587-PH2147 Germanic, you can Celtic, Old European, or more unfamiliar but definitely not SLAVIC”

Can I ask a simple question? Am I correct to say that this haplogroup has spread into the Balkans via the Slavs?

I think your argument has the same validity as saying that haplogroup I1 is not Germanic, but a hunter-gatherer one. Yes, if you compare different time periods together you might say that, but the fact is, I1 was transmitted to most of Central and Southern Europe by Germanic speakers.

September 9, 2021 at 12:06 AM

…..

Dranoel said…

@ Leonidas D

If I can cut in – calling Y5587 typically Slavic is not correct.

I know I repeat this like a mantra, but:

1. Apart from the typical location of most Z2103 (EU SE and E) we know that in Neolithic / Bronze some group of Z2103 people starts to mix in Central Europe with CWC / BB – we have Z2103 from Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic. So we can assume with a high degree of probability that these people have been around since then. This can be confirmed in part by the Z2103-By593 from the medieval Czech sample, the Z2109 from the VK 535 sample and the current FTDNA results (although I know that you have to be careful about it).

2. In my opinion, suggesting, inter alia, FTDNA etc. you will notice that since CTS9219 we have a lot of samples from Central Europe and NW. By250 (called Germanic by you) and Y5587 are present here all the time, from the Bronze Age to today. Looking at the next (below CTS9219) SNPs, we can see a few more migrations. Probably Y18959 split – FGC43622 / Y5587 stayed in Central EU, and By611 went away to SE. Then local Y5587 turns to PH2147 and part migrates to SE and becomes Y5586. We know this SNP (Y5586) from, among others. Alani samples etc. But looking at the Y TREE and the dates of these SNPs, it seems very old! So, for example, if (suppose) Y5587 was present in the Lusatian culture, it could have migrated with it towards the SE and stayed in an area that was later inhabited by Iron Age nomads who „absorbed” Y5586. From PH2147 we can see that this and the following SNPs are mainly dominated by Poles and Czechs with small amounts from other countries. Many Czech samples seem to come from older Polish ones.

What could all this mean?
On 1 – that we can say that Y5587-PH2147 is „Slavic” if we think about the fact that today it is most common in countries with a Slavic language (Poland and the Czech Republic)

After 2 – we absolutely cannot say that this is the Y DNA of the ancient Slavs. The Z2103 in this part of Europe is probably from the Bronze Age, so according to history, the first ethnically named tribes in this region (Iron Age) are Germanic. In fact, from Y FGC7556 there are several matches in NW and N Europe – mainly Sweden. In Sweden, we have the known CTS7556, FGC43622 and a few people below By593 and FGC43625. It also suggests contacts with Europe N.

If you don’t want to call Y5587-PH2147 Germanic, you can Celtic, Old European, or more unfamiliar but definitely not SLAVIC. At most „slavinized”.

If Z2103 performed in the Czech Republic with BB / CWC, it is very likely that with them or later Unietice or Tumulus he moved further north.

September 8, 2021 at 4:33 PM

…..

To byłoby na tyle…

34 uwagi do wpisu “299 Odwrócona teoria falowa – wyjaśnienie powstawania wtórnych zniekształceń / ubezdźwięcznień w językach Post-PIE / CWC i Post-CWC wg SKRiBHa

    • @John Thomas
      It’s not being ‚crap at geography’. It’s all part of the anti-white animus which is now de figure amongst the so called ‚great and good’.

      100% true, unfortunately! 😦

      As you can see, not only Anthony, Reich, Harvard, Max Planck Institute, etc. have been simply prejudiced and politicised to the core.

      Prejudice to logic and facts has been around for a very long time. In the past, those who ‘knew better’ were burning people at the stake or murdering them in some other charming ways. Of course, all of this was done for the ‘benefit of science and society’. Nowadays only methods have changed.

      The fact is that the so-called modern science sticks to the neck in prejudices which come straight from desert sources and Prussian-Nazi figment.

      It is enough to mention and prove this, and the whole mass of followers of this ‚science’ goes crazy offended, here as well. As a rule, they do not have any reliable arguments or keep using outdated propaganda pieces.

      But on the other hand, they have been true masters. They have mastered spitting their blant venom over the internet. LOL 🙂

      @Simon_W
      That really doesn’t make any sense if you apply this to the prejudices that some commenters here suspect, namely that we have to avoid Eurocentrism, that Europeans are a mix of black Africans and Asian invaders, i.e. the whole set of cultural Marxist, politically correct beliefs. These are the complete opposite of Nordicist Nazi beliefs, which claimed that everything valuable came from Europe, especially from the Nordic race, white to the bone. How can you equate this to the stance that race doesn’t exist, that Europe has received way too much attention in scholarship and that Europe is responsible for all that goes wrong in the world? Equating Max Planck’s Krause (the one who said WHG were almost indistinguishable from Black Africans and that mass immigration nowadays cannot change the European gene pool in any significant way) with Nazis is ridiculous.

      You have made a valid point regarding ‚cultural Marxist, politically correct beliefs’. However, you completely omitted ‚desert sources’ from what I wrote, see:

      „The fact is that the so-called modern science sticks to the neck in prejudices which come straight from desert sources and Prussian-Nazi figment.”

      In 1870, Christian Prussians (ancestors of the ‘Aryan’ Nazis from the NSDAP), brought up in modern Prussian schools, defeated the ‘Aryan’ Gauls like Arthur de Gobineau, etc. But they all learned from the same ‘desert sources’ and ‘desert tradition’. Both Marx, Stalin, etc., and Hitler, Rosenberg, etc., were socialists, and also learned from the same ‘desert sources’ and ‘desert tradition’.

      Polubienie

    • Okazuje się, że Davidski tak bardzo dba o czystość rasową komentarzy u siebie, że postanowił także nasze dwa wcześniejsze komentarze wykasować… Brawo.

      …..

      Dalsze moje pisanie tam nie ma już dla Mię zupełnie sensu. Opiszę to, co także i o tym myślę, we wpisie nr 301.

      Polubienie

      • Tu jest coś do kompletu, niby z innej, ale jednak z tej samej beczki…

        Triumf stalinizmu w Krakowie
        Operacja komunistów polegająca na budowie Nowej Huty po to, żeby zneutralizować prawicowy Kraków, odniosła pełny sukces. Dzisiaj Kraków jest tak czerwony, że odznaczałby się na fladze ZSRR.

        @lelek
        Jak przeczytałem ostatnio na stronie Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego z Poznania o osiągnięciach „naukowczyń” tegoż Uniwersytetu, to zdębiałem.

        grzeg
        Środowisko „akademickie” (świadomie piszę w cudzysłowie”). Czy stany szaleństwa już zwyciężyły? A może to na zimno prowadzona cyniczna polityka?

        https://wpolityce.pl/spoleczenstwo/571163-hipopotam-spisek-gender-i-anulowanie-prawdy

        Hipopotam, spisek gender i anulowanie prawdy – rzecz nie tylko o Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim

        opublikowano: przedwczoraj

        Organizacje prorodzinne zaniepokoiły się sytuacją na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim dotyczącą postępującej ideologizacji tej najstarszej polskiej Alma Mater. Choć alarm wywołała ankieta skierowana do studentów sugerująca wielość płci i dowolność wyboru płci, co oznacza negację dorobku biologii czy medycyny, to jednak ideologizacja tej i innych uczelni ma o wiele większy zasięg. Odchodzi się od kryterium poszukiwania prawdy, czy pożytku publicznego i moralności, nie pyta się o podstawy naukowe.

        Chętnie popiera się wydarzenia i materiały popularyzujące poliamorię, czy przygodne kontakty seksualne, ale zapominając o skutkach np. zdrowotnych. UJ odmówił ostatecznie udzielenia odpowiedzi na proste i logiczne pytania sprawdzające podstawy naukowe, przejrzystość finansową i stosowane zasady etyczne. Z autonomii uczelni wyższych nie stosujących reguł myślenia naukowego wyłania się następująca logika: płać obywatelu i o nic nie pytaj. Jeśli obywatel ma wątpliwości i domaga się dowodów to nienawidzi. Wmawianie innym nienawiści pod pozorami obrony rzekomo zawsze słabszych i segregacja społeczna to majstersztyk neomarksizmu, majstersztyk dla wszystkich katastrofalny.

        Ideologizacja nauki jest niebezpieczna, ponieważ oznacza negowanie wiedzy weryfikowanej empirycznie, wyciszanie zdrowej debaty naukowej i ogłaszanie dogmatów nowej moralności. Używając autorytetu nauki legitymizuje się stopniowe ograniczanie swobód obywatelskich, restrykcje prawne i finansowe dotyczące zwykłych obywateli, co możemy obserwować w innych krajach i coraz częściej w Polsce. Między władzami UJ oraz organizacjami prorodzinnymi nastąpiła wymiana pism, w której UJ ostatecznie odmówił odpowiedzi na zadane 14 pytań dotyczących m.in.:

        — udostępnienia badań czy raportów naukowych, które stanowiłyby podstawę przyjętej ideologizującej polityki dotyczącej m.in. płci i seksualności,

        — upublicznienia wysokości wydatków m.in. „Działu ds. Bezpieczeństwa i Równego Traktowania – Bezpieczni UJ” zatrudniającego aktualnie 8 osób i innych komórek ds różnorodności,

        — profilaktyki skutków, w tym zwłaszcza zdrowotnych m.in. rozwiązłości seksualnej czy dowolności ekspresji płciowej wśród studentów z powodu przyjętej polityki ideologicznej,

        — statystyk Działu ds. Bezpieczeństwa (liczba przyjętych zgłoszeń ws gróźb karalnych, przykładów nękania z podziałem na przedmiot dyskryminacji),

        — otwartości na współpracę z organizacjami konserwatywnymi w równym stopniu co dotychczas z lewicowymi.

        Kopie pism NA STRONIE onaion.ORG.PL

        UJ brak odpowiedzi argumentował tym, że nie są to informacje szczególnie istotne dla interesu publicznego i w związku z tym nie ma obowiązku ich udostępniania pod ustawowym obowiązkiem informacji publicznej, pomimo szczegółowego uzasadnienia wysłanego przez organizacje prorodzinne. W ten sposób UJ przyznał się pośrednio, że takich danych po prostu nie posiada, a bezpośrednio – do swojej wysokiej stronniczości. Gdyby tak nie było, wykazując dobrą wolę, w tym wolę dialogu, na którą się powołuje rektor UJ, uczelnia mogłaby odpowiedzieć przynajmniej na niektóre zadane pytania, które zresztą mają charakter uniwersalny i dobrze demaskują oszustwa naukowe ideologii gender jako takiej. Oznacza to logikę: my wszyscy mamy obowiązek płacić podatki na uczelnie typu UJ, nawet jeśli głoszą naukowe bzdury i nie wymagać absolutnie tłumaczenia się z tych wydatków.

        Niestety jest to także efekt nowej reformy szkolnictwa wyższego, która przyznała uczelniom wyższym daleko idącą autonomię, a nie zobowiązała do wypełniania swoich obowiązków. Kontrowersji dodaje sprawie fakt, że przy okazji sprawdzenia dokumentów wyznaczających ramy prawne funkcjonowania uczelni wyszło na jaw, że poszukiwanie i dochodzenie do obiektywnej prawdy nie jest wprost uznane w nowej ustawie jako nadrzędny cel uczelni wyższych, mówi się tylko ogólnie, „że dążenie do poznania prawdy i przekazywanie wiedzy z pokolenia na pokolenie jest szczególnie szlachetną działalnością człowieka”, a nie zostało to wprost zapisane jako zadanie realizowane przez uczelnie (preambuła Ustawy z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. – Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce). Statut UJ z kolei mówi zaledwie o „szacunku dla prawdy” i to dopiero po ideach humanizmu i tolerancji, a nie zobligowaniu do jej odkrywania (§ 1, 3). Kluczowy dokument, na który powołuje się status UJ – Magna Charta Universitatum 2020 – także nie odwołuje się do prawdy, fundamenty nauki to wg tego dokumentu zaledwie: 1. jej niezależność, 2.współzależność badań i przekazywania wiedzy, 3. otwartość na dialog i odrzucanie nietolerancji. Gdzie jest tu miejsce na prawdę jako zgodność osądu z rzeczywistością? Czy nie dlatego coraz częściej bada się w nauce subiektywne narracje, percepcje, dyskursy, ekspresje czy opinie zamiast faktów i obserwacji? (…)

        Polubienie

      • Napisałem mu tak:

        @Davidski
        @SKRiBHa and Simon_W
        Please take your discussion to email.

        Dear Davidski

        I have just noticed that you did not post my last comment, but deleted Simon_W’s and my two previously published comments as well. However, you did not delete the original comment made by @John Thomas.

        I must admit that it surprised me a lot, because all these comments were very reasonable and contained nothing but logical statements and arguments.

        We wrote about the same scientific prejudices and misinformation that you have been writing about e.g. here:

        https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/modern-domestic-horses-came-from.html?showComment=1635124909054#c6513675922922308414

        Davidski said…
        I’m showing that the scientists who published a paper in Nature, as well as the peer reviewers and editors there, don’t know very basic geography.

        I think this is important because it suggests that there are other things that they don’t know, are careless about, and/or simply can’t be arsed checking properly.
        October 24, 2021 at 6:21 PM

        The only difference is that we did it in a polite way, although the core of the problem was exactly the same like in yours.

        Would you be so kind and explain what was supposedly inappropriate in our deleted comments so that we all can avoid any similar situation in the future?

        Best regards
        SKRiBHa

        October 26, 2021 at 6:17 AM

        https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/modern-domestic-horses-came-from.html?showComment=1635254254244#c2103538753166048667

        Polubienie

  1. @All

    In reference to the pastoralism and domestication of horses in the area of the Pontic-Caspian steppe which is located in Eastern Europe, east of the Carpathians, where the first burial mounds / kurgans were erected:

    https://nowiny24.pl/archeolodzy-na-pogorzu-przemyskim-odkopali-kurhan-sprzed-niemal-pieciu-tysiecy-lat-zdjecia-wideo/ar/c1-15864791

    Archeolodzy na Pogórzu Przemyskim odkopali kurhan sprzed niemal pięciu tysięcy lat! [ZDJĘCIA, WIDEO]
    Archaeologists in the Przemysl Foothills have unearthed a kurgan from almost five thousand years ago! [PHOTOS, VIDEO]

    Beata Terczyńska 21/10/2021, 16:26

    To najwyżej położony kurhan kultury ceramiki sznurowej w polskiej części Karpat, w którym znaleźliśmy groby – mówi Paweł Jarosz z Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii krakowskiego oddziału PAN (…)
    This is the highest located kurgan of the Corded Ware culture in the Polish part of the Carpathians, where we found graves – says Paweł Jarosz from the Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Krakow branch of the Polish Academy of Sciences
    (…)

    Paweł Jarosz z Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN z Krakowa tłumaczy, że ta kultura związana była z ludnością pasterską, która sypała kopce na najwyższych garbach w obrębie wyniesienia. Dlaczego?
    Paweł Jarosz from the Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Krakow explains that this culture was associated with the shepherd population, who poured mounds on the highest humps within the elevation. Why?

    – Chodziło o to, żeby były dobrze widoczne w okolicy, bo poza tym, że pełniły one funkcję funeralną, czyli składano tam zmarłych, uważa się, że również stanowiły drogowskazy szlaków dla pasterzy.
    – The point was that they should be clearly visible in the area, because apart from the fact that they had a funeral function, i.e. the dead were buried there, it is also believed that they were also signposts for routes for shepherds.
    (…)

    This is a proof that the etymology of the word Kurhan / Ko’R+GaN is related to the meaning of Górka / Go’R+Ka / hill!

    October 28, 2021 at 3:29 AM

    https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/modern-domestic-horses-came-from.html?showComment=1635417019024#c2362385467621963020

    Polubienie

        • Nie mam nic do powiedzenia, natomiast Anna szukała kiedyś ANE, kim niby oni są, jak wyglądali.
          Mumie z Tarim, mają R1b i są aż w 75% tymi własnie ANE, zmieszanymi tylko z północno-wschodnimi azjatami (coś jak Ainu?),

          Bardzo ciekawe, szczególnie gdy się popatrzy na graf:
          https://zapodaj.net/dfd2abddc4467.png.html

          EHG są z tego samego pnia co ANE, mają od nich tylko 9% domieszki

          Połowa j Azji była pierwotnie europoidalna

          Polubione przez 1 osoba

          • Mumie z Tarim miały być pierwotnie R1a, albo Proto-Celtami, patrz wzory na tkaninach. Wiele zmian, wiele zmian…

            (…) Mumie z Tarim, mają R1b i są aż w 75% tymi własnie ANE, zmieszanymi tylko z północno-wschodnimi azjatami (coś jak Ainu?), (…)

            Czyli co, I2 już nie jest Pra-Słowiańskie wg Ciebie, tylko ANE / EGH? 🙂

            Polubienie

          • Ten graf pokazuje Yamna bez CHG, jako Basal Eurasian + EHG, które jako ANE, też jest Basal Eurasian, itp. Myślę, że ten graf to ktoś jak Kristiansen z dupy sobie wydumał, a właściwie wydymał…

            Polubienie

            • „graf pokazuje Yamna bez CHG, jako Basal Eurasian + EHG,”

              Dobrze pokazuje, Yamowcy są w około 1/3 „jak CHG” ale nie są CHG

              „Czyli co, I2 już nie jest Pra-Słowiańskie ”

              Nie ma podstaw do zmiany, GAC na tym grafie oznaczyłbym jako Slavic, EHG jako Balts

              Polubienie

              • (…) Dobrze pokazuje, Yamowcy są w około 1/3 „jak CHG” ale nie są CHG (…)

                A czy inni, jak np. Reich, Davidski, itp., o tym wiedzą?

                Nie chce mi się po raz kolejny pytać o to skąd rzekomi Bałtowie EHG nabyli swoja IE bałtyckość, skoro I2 ma być PIE. Szkoda, że nigdy nie zechciałeś napisać po kolei w punktach, jak to z tym lnem było, więc nie pytam, wzruszam tylko ramionami i zostawiam to, tak jak to jest.

                Polubienie

  2. Czy czytaliście ostatnią pracę o Tarim basin mummies?
    Czy tam są podane y dna?

    Czy w tej pracy korzystano z tego samego materiału genetycznego co w poprzedniej pracy dot tarim, gdzie chyba 6 albo 7 próbek należało do R1a (wszyscy mężczyźni)?

    S, jeśli nie znasz odpowiedzi na 3 pytanie czy możesz zapytać Davidskiego?

    Polubione przez 1 osoba

  3. Nie pytaj.
    Wygląda, ze mumie Tarim z tego badania to coś innego.
    Z R1b1c i Q.
    Ciekawe czy byli blond?

    Nigdy nie dojdziemy do tocharian jeśli będą tak wybiórczo badać.
    Gdyby łaskawie wzięli i te wcześniejsze próbki z R1a1a, które Hui Zhou widzi jako europejskie i zrobili ich autosomalny profil to byłby pełniejszy przekrój.

    Polubione przez 1 osoba

      • Pytanie miało brzmieć
        Czy w tym artykule zostały zbadane również próbki z poprzedniej pracy o Tarim basin?

        Chyba z 2015. Ale to już nieaktualne.
        Bo znalazłam y dna w tej pracy. I z Tarim są R1b1c i Q.

        A jak pamietasz dotychczas wiedziano że „białe mumie” są R1a1.

        Ponieważ nie ma w spisie próbek R1a1 więc jasne że nie zostały „dobadane”.

        Wielka szkoda.

        Mnie właśnie autosomy tych R1a1 interesują.

        Polubienie

        • Jak sama widzisz, wiadomo nic. Twierdzenia, że R1b są z Andronovo, jak to pisze Davidski, to brednia, patrz jego wcześneijsze wypowiedzi o R1a-Z93 w Andronovo. Wszyscy nic, tylko pierdolą trzy po trzy. Zero sensu. Nudne to.

          Polubienie

        • „Mnie właśnie autosomy tych R1a1 interesują.”

          Z tego co zrozumiałem, R1a sprzed lat są błędnie odczytane, teraz są one R1b.
          To by wyjaśniało, dlaczego owe R1a opisywano jako ” nie Z93″, gdy wiadomo, że był to najpewniejszy kład dla tej lokalizacji.

          Tak więc, sa oni R1b natomiast autosomalnie są niemal czystymi ANE. mają tego 70%, pozostałóe 30% to północno-wschodni azjaci, jak domyślam się coś jak Ainu z Japonii.

          Polubione przez 1 osoba

          • Powtórzę:

            Jak sam widzisz, wiadomo nic. Twierdzenia, że R1b są z Andronovo, jak to pisze Davidski, to brednia, patrz jego wcześniejsze wypowiedzi o R1a-Z93 w Andronovo. Wszyscy nic, tylko pierdolą trzy po trzy. Zero sensu. Nudne to.

            Polubienie

  4. „Z tego co zrozumiałem, R1a sprzed lat są błędnie odczytane, teraz są one R1b. To by wyjaśniało, dlaczego owe R1a opisywano jako ” nie Z93″, gdy wiadomo, że był to najpewniejszy kład dla tej lokalizacji.”

    R1b1c to jest kład afrykanski.
    Czadu. Nie IE.

    Naprawdę tak napisano? Że w poprzedniej pracy pomylono hg?

    Dla mnie to różnica. Czy R1a1 czy R1b1c.

    R1a1 ale *z93 z poprzednich oznaczeń mógł być z Europy. Którąś podgałęzią np. L664. Albo jacyś Wołżanie np. Z92 mogli migrować na wschód a inna część nad Bałtyk.

    Mógł to być R1a1a bez mutacji europejskiej. Jakiś inny wschodni odłam M17.

    Ta praca niestety nic nie wyjaśnia.

    Z drugiej strony stwierdzili, że najstarsze mumie to lokalne syberyjskie ANE z domieszką czegoś jak Ainu ze wschodu.

    Czy taka populacja nie mogła mówić pro preTocharskim? Mogła, jeśli przyjmiemy że PIE to łowcy ANE. Szkopuł że współczesne syberyjskie nie są IE. A ich mówcy mają najwięcej ANE.

    Polubienie

    • (…) Ta praca niestety nic nie wyjaśnia. (…)

      BRAWO!!!

      Zamierzam opisać to i zapytać się mondrali, jak to możliwe, że R1b ma niby pochodzić z Andronovo… hehehe…

      A co do odczytywania DNA, no to po Alexandrii nie ma sensu komentować dokładności próbkowania uskutecznianej przez fiotoncych gienietikóf, patrz:

      Davidski said…
      The paper argues that these Botai-like mummies were locals.

      This might be true, but how did they acquire their relatively advanced culture and economy if they were isolated in the Tarim Basin?

      Perhaps they were only isolated genetically, but not culturally/economically?

      October 27, 2021 at 4:50 PM

      Andrzejewski said…
      Tarim Basin Mummies like Ur-David, Beauty of Lulan, Cherchen Man look very modern European. They could either be:

      Afanasievo/Okunevo with Steppe (+ possible WSHG).
      Andronovo (which also means GAC, WHG and some traces of BMAC).

      Or WSHG who through common descent from Mal’ta Boy relatives looked very similar to our Pontic ancestors. There is no other way around it.

      October 27, 2021 at 5:06 PM

      Andrzejewski said…
      Tocharian must’ve come with Andronovo horizon then.

      October 27, 2021 at 5:10 PM

      Davidski said…
      Okunevo has some Afanasievo ancestry. The Tarim mummies don’t.

      October 27, 2021 at 6:17 PM

      Davidski said…
      It’s no longer certain if any of the mummies belonged to R1a(xZ93), because those results were based on old PCR tests.

      My bet is that there will be late mummies with R1a in the Tarim Basin, but all or almost all will be Z93, and derived from the Andronovo population.

      October 27, 2021 at 11:59 PM

      Simon_W said…
      @Andrzejewski

      „Tocharian must’ve come with Andronovo horizon then.”

      Wouldn’t it seem more likely that Tocharian came from a population that was derived from the Afanasievo-heavy Dzungarian Basin EBA with its R1b1a1a2a2 or a related nearby pop? I would think so, because of its very non-Indo-Iranian features that look partly Celtic-like and the fact that it split from the IE mainstream right after the IE Anatolian did. Andronovo people on the other hand were very mobile (given their chariots), so unlikely to harbour languages as diverged as Indo-Iranian and Tocharian at the same time. Moreover Andronovo seems to be R1a-Z93 dominated, IIRC, which is associated with Indo-Iranian.

      October 28, 2021 at 7:10 AM

      H₂ŕ̥ḱtos said…
      I definitely agree with your assessment, I find the attempts to associate the Tocharian language with Andronovo-derived groups very confusing, considering the fairly confident assessment by linguistics that Tocharian represents a divergent branch of IE language that significantly pre-dates Indo-Iranian. We need to remember that „Tocharian”, as a name of the language, is a misnomer. We know that the Tokharoi mentioned by Helleno-Bactrian sources were Iranians, and not speakers of the language we have (perhaps confusingly) come to call „Tocharian”. Afanasievo is kind of undoubtedly the only sensible steppe-derived culture to consider a vector of pre-proto-Tocharian language to the area.

      Sure, we apparently have R1a-bearing mummies appearing in the Tarim basin ca. 1800 BCE or so, and these might be Andronovo-derived. However, until we see autosomal analysis or more precise subclade analysis, could it just be that the ANE ancestors of the EBA Tarim mummies had both R1a and R1b, and R1a lines increased in frequency for whatever reason? I think so. That said, I trust what’s said about a shift in burial practice towards something more Andronovo-like, and so I feel like these LBA Tarim mummies being Andronovo-derived – and therefore almost certainly Iranian-speaking – quite likely, or at least perfectly feasible. However, more to the point, when do Tocharian language texts appear in the archaeological record? Not until 400 CE or so. That’s about 2200 years between our rough time of an Andronovo expansion into the Tarim basin and actual attestation of Tocharian language. Bear in mind that Afanesievo-derived cultures are right next door during the EBA and later. I’m willing to bet we’ll see R1b-Z1203-bearing, Dzungaria-derived individuals in the Tarim mummy record at some point prior to and/or during the attested Tocharian language period, were we to sample all the mummies available. Examination of Chemurchek and post-Chemurchek samples, as well as obviously of more LBA, IA and medieval Tarim samples, would likely be illuminating.

      October 29, 2021 at 10:49 AM

      Davidski said…
      @zulla

      There’s no direct or indirect evidence that these Trim Basin mummies were Tocharians.

      If anything, they were replaced by Tocharians.

      October 31, 2021 at 2:47 PM

      Polubienie

    • „Czy taka populacja nie mogła mówić pro preTocharskim? Mogła, jeśli przyjmiemy że PIE to łowcy ANE. Szkopuł że współczesne syberyjskie nie są IE. A ich mówcy mają najwięcej ANE.”

      Kiedyś Anatolia nie mówiła po turecku. Patrzę na grupę ałtajską, a tam są w niej zarówno Mongołowie jak i Azerowie oraz Turcy, zupełnie do siebie nie podobni, gdy tymczasem żółtość rasowa Mongołów pochodzi z Chin, skąd zostali wypędzeni na step. Zatem to oni zmienili język,
      Znowu jeżyki turkijskie na Syberii to pozostałość migracji z południa, dotyczy to Jakutów i innych.

      Może jest tak, że Indianie z Ameryki Północnej zachowali najwięcej oryginalnego języka ANE, gdyż wywędrowali nim języki tur kijskie zaczęły się rozprzestrzeniać?

      Zwróć uwagę na języki słowiańskie w Rosji, ewidentnie mamy przybycie języka słowiańskiego z zachodu, najpierw u nielicznych plemion w morzu niesłowiańskich języków, dzisiaj widzimy gigantyczny jednolity kolor az po Japonię,

      Polubienie

  5. W tej pracy są inne interesujące ryciny.
    Sarazm, Namazga i inne kaspijskie kultury miały owe ANE Tarim geny.
    Miały też trochę Iran N. Szczególnie Geoksyur.
    Ale główny element autosomalny to anatolijski EEF.

    Polubione przez 1 osoba

  6. Jeśli białe mumie były miejscowe no to chyba znaczy że nasza biel pochodzi z AG.
    Z Syberii.
    Ale czy przypadkiem nie ma sporo białych w krajach finskowatych?

    S, co myślisz o komponencie EEF nad morzem kaspijskim?

    Polubienie

  7. Pingback: 300 Definicje powstawania języków PIE i Post-PIE wg SKRiBHa | SKRBH

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.