Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

YCC Hap I and Indo-Europeans - Redux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Derinos: WRONG

    Derinos,

    1) The motion about HgI and IEs has NOT been defeated. On the contrary, it hasn't even been debated. All that has been posted (with a few exceptions) is incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo about Prussians, Kant, Nietsche, Jews, Hyperborean people, Arctic dwellers, Atlantis, etc. Looks like this thread drew all the crazies this time.

    2) The time frame you quoted is for the EMERGENCE of HgI; not its spread or its subsequent subclades.

    The subclades emerged as recently as 3000 years ago. See the table at the end of the paper.

    The authors also give VERY broad date ranges, often plus or minus 5000 years.

    So, you see, if you assume the proto-IEs were HG I, and the subclades represent the different groupings within Europe, and you actually READ the date table for the emrgence of those subclades, we have eerily, undeniable similarities with the split of and emergence of Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and possibly Italic toungues in Europe.

    To those who cling to the high presence of HgI in the Saami, but are proponents of the J2 theory - you gotta be kidding me! You believe this theory cannot be right because 20% of Saami are HgI -- and yet 70% of Semitic speakers are J2, and you think J2 is the IE haplogroup???

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mikey
      Derinos,

      1) The motion about HgI and IEs has NOT been defeated. On the contrary, it hasn't even been debated. All that has been posted (with a few exceptions) is incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo about Prussians, Kant, Nietsche, Jews, Hyperborean people, Arctic dwellers, Atlantis, etc. Looks like this thread drew all the crazies this time.
      If you failed to understand my comments regarding Kant, please review them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask for clarification. As regards Atlantis, my comment was intended tongue-in-cheek. My comments about Hyperborea were a bit more serious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnoyarsk_Krai

      I provided several references for you to consult. Have you consulted them?

      Originally posted by Mikey
      So, you see, if you assume the proto-IEs were HG I, and the subclades represent the different groupings within Europe, and you actually READ the date table for the emrgence of those subclades, we have eerily, undeniable similarities with the split of and emergence of Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and possibly Italic toungues in Europe.
      "plus or minus 5000 years."

      I have not completely rejected your hypothesis, but I have not seen much to persuade me of it either. I believe we can agree that HgI did spread with the expansion of Germanic, and particularly Northern Germanic. This article is farily consistent with my thinking, if we combine both the hybridization and non-IE substrate concepts. It would seem to be reflected in the Y-Chromosomes as well. Assuming HgI was contributed by the Saami-Lappish population, the R1b by pre-Scythian Centum-speakers, and R1a by Scythians arriving around 530 BCE, we can account for the vast majority of Y-Chromosomes present in Germanic populations.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani...ate_hypothesis

      I wish we had better information regarding the breakdown of Y-DNA among, for example, Pakastanis. A recent study stated that a large number are "Haplogroup 1" which includes R1b as well as Q(typically Amerind) and some more esoteric R*, etc. The haplotype listings did not indicate any very close matches to Western Europe, but the Haplogroup analysis was surprisingly superficial. Indeed, the broad stroke treatment left room for HgI. One can only speculate, however.

      Comment


      • #63
        More than one Haplogroup contributed to the development of the IE language tree the same as more than one contributed to what we call Germanic peoples, Italic peoples etc. There is no IE Haplogroup or Germanic Haplogroup....

        This thread has really spun its wheels, doesn't it get old?

        We can't force a Haplogroup(s) to fit our view of history. They have scientists that study these things for a living so it might be cool to relax and see what they come up with.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by la_roccia
          More than one Haplogroup contributed to the development of the IE language tree the same as more than one contributed to what we call Germanic peoples, Italic peoples etc. There is no IE Haplogroup or Germanic Haplogroup....

          This thread has really spun its wheels, doesn't it get old?

          We can't force a Haplogroup(s) to fit our view of history. They have scientists that study these things for a living so it might be cool to relax and see what they come up with.
          My reply is here:

          http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/s...9&postcount=18

          Comment


          • #65
            Derinos

            1.Mikey, I did concede, that
            ...."a mix of Hg's (of course including post-refugial subclades of Hg I) , would have participated as recipients or as carriers or both, in the Great IE Speech Distribution, ...."

            That responds to your chronologic points.

            But I go on to opine that it was a cultural not a genetic-driven process, passing many generations, and with as many different determinant factors as there were carrier-recipient encounters. The remarkable thing is that the process was always one-way, east-west.

            2.Have you read some of the 70's paleolinguistic papers? I found them tough going ( translations from Russian) but remember (with faith) that
            a. They narrowed the IE linguistic locus of origin to the *plains* near the Black Sea, because the oldest descendant tongues had no word for "mountain", which only appears in later decendant tongues.
            B. By analysing and following across Europe a chronolinguistic standard for mutations of certain words, they opined that the timescale of the move was multi-millennial.

            3.There must be some general driving force behind this westward genetic-mix cultural drift that is demonstrated for several successive schools of stone technology, then pottery, subsistence methods, then language. Under later artifactual colors, it is still going on, now washing on the shores of the Pacific Ocean after oozing across America over nearly four centuries.

            Comment


            • #66
              Now we have some good replies! Great dialogue here.

              To Hetware: GREAT point (your reply to La Roccia) - why should we leave it to the scientists? Our infusion of hypotheses and creativity may well stimulate future research. I for one also believe my mind is just as good as any other.

              To Hetware re: sources. There are sources, and then there are sources. I love Wikipedia, donate to it, etc., but it is not a source. ANYONE can edit it, and your stuff will appear for at least a couple hours. My neighborhood here in Portland even has its own entry.

              Many other "sources" on the web are just bogus. I mean, c'mon, don't we all know those basis genealogy sites that say "Hg I means Viking." "J2 means Jewish." The web unfortunately creates too many "sources."

              I stick to the scientific papers (the research or "facts") and interpret them. It is always best to go to the data source and interpret it, rather than interpret someone else's interpretations.

              To Derinos: Great points about the linguistic evidence on the IE homeland. I personally give credibility to this theory.

              (For those unfamiliar: this is the theory that if you take all the cognates of the root languages that give clues to geography (e.g, pine v. palm tree, elephant v. cow, birch tree, snow, etc.), you can have an idea of the IE homeland. Of course, such a language would not have a word for elephant or palm tree.

              But Derinos, you should know that the majority of experts (Cavalli Sforza and Renfrew, to name two) thoroughly discredit this theory. For two reasons:

              1) Though a word may remain similar and be present in all languages, the meaning may change. For example, just because all languages may have the word "car", it may have been applied at one era to a CARRIAGE and in another to a HORSELESS CARRIAGE, or automobile. Radically different definition. There are tons of examples in IE languages for trees changing not the word, but the meaning. And of course, if you lose meaning, you lose all. If palm means pine in one era, well, you see where I am going.

              2) Historical closeness means loan words. An example is kartoffel - means potato in Germanic and Slavic toungues. Can we extrapolate the IEs lived in a world with potatoes because they have the same root word?

              The potato was domesticated in the Andes and reached Europe in the 1700s. So, the answer is no.

              I for one think using linguistics to trace the urheimat is a creative theory, and I support it. But just know it is not gospel truth.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mikey

                All that has been posted (with a few exceptions) is incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo about Prussians, Kant, Nietsche, Jews, Hyperborean people, Arctic dwellers, Atlantis, etc. Looks like this thread drew all the crazies this time.
                Everything was stated clearly, and, contrary to your fallacious arrogance, bringing up marginally relevant topics does not constitute evidence of "craziness". Family Tree DNA forum is, to its advantage, scientifically open-minded, and all sorts of un-PC issues are brought up. Subjects of discussion have included Hyperborea, the Cimmero-Scythian origins of the Israelites (Jim Denning), etc., and there is a present discussion about Biblical history, Antarctic cartography, and the mysteries of ancient civilizations. Would you like to stamp all this 'irregularity' out according to arrogant rationalism?

                Comment


                • #68
                  My reply:
                  http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/s...2&postcount=27

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Seriously folks!

                    Originally posted by Hrodberht
                    Everything was stated clearly, and, contrary to your fallacious arrogance, bringing up marginally relevant topics does not constitute evidence of "craziness". Family Tree DNA forum is, to its advantage, scientifically open-minded, and all sorts of un-PC issues are brought up. Subjects of discussion have included Hyperborea,
                    Which you introduced, and for which I tried to provide some tangible explanation that did not involve a circumpolar, Hyperborean root-race. See Mallory and Mair The Tarim Mummies to find my reasons for proposing the Yenisei headwaters.

                    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ei_basin_7.png
                    http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...asia_ref04.jpg
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture

                    Originally posted by Hrodberht
                    Antarctic cartography, and the mysteries of ancient civilizations. Would you like to stamp all this 'irregularity' out according to arrogant rationalism?
                    Why should I consider Thule and Hyperborea to be one in the same?

                    http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/eng/pyth02.htm

                    It's fun, but it's not science.

                    Edgar Allen Poe

                    By a route obscure and lonely,
                    Haunted by ill angels only,
                    Where an Eidolon, named NIGHT,
                    On a black throne reigns upright,
                    I have reached these lands but newly
                    From an ultimate dim Thule-
                    From a wild clime that lieth, sublime,
                    Out of SPACE–out of TIME.

                    Bottomless vales and boundless floods,
                    And chasms, and caves, and Titan woods,
                    With forms that no man can discover
                    For the tears that drip all over;
                    Mountains toppling evermore
                    Into seas without a shore;
                    Seas that restlessly aspire,
                    Surging, unto skies of fire;
                    Lakes that endlessly outspread
                    Their lone waters–lone and dead,-
                    Their still waters–still and chilly
                    With the snows of the lolling lily.

                    By the lakes that thus outspread
                    Their lone waters, lone and dead,-
                    Their sad waters, sad and chilly
                    With the snows of the lolling lily,-
                    By the mountains–near the river
                    Murmuring lowly, murmuring ever,-
                    By the grey woods,–by the swamp
                    Where the toad and the newt encamp-
                    By the dismal tarns and pools
                    Where dwell the Ghouls,-
                    By each spot the most unholy-
                    In each nook most melancholy-
                    There the traveller meets aghast
                    Sheeted Memories of the Past-
                    Shrouded forms that start and sigh
                    As they pass the wanderer by-
                    White-robed forms of friends long given,
                    In agony, to the Earth–and Heaven.

                    For the heart whose woes are legion
                    'Tis a peaceful, soothing region-
                    For the spirit that walks in shadow
                    'Tis–oh, 'tis an Eldorado!
                    But the traveller, travelling through it,
                    May not–dare not openly view it!
                    Never its mysteries are exposed
                    To the weak human eye unclosed;
                    So wills its King, who hath forbid
                    The uplifting of the fringed lid;
                    And thus the sad Soul that here passes
                    Beholds it but through darkened glasses.

                    By a route obscure and lonely,
                    Haunted by ill angels only,
                    Where an Eidolon, named NIGHT,
                    On a black throne reigns upright,
                    I have wandered home but newly
                    From this ultimate dim Thule.

                    THE END

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mikey
                      To Derinos: Great points about the linguistic evidence on the IE homeland. I personally give credibility to this theory.

                      (For those unfamiliar: this is the theory that if you take all the cognates of the root languages that give clues to geography (e.g, pine v. palm tree, elephant v. cow, birch tree, snow, etc.), you can have an idea of the IE homeland. Of course, such a language would not have a word for elephant or palm tree.

                      But Derinos, you should know that the majority of experts (Cavalli Sforza and Renfrew, to name two) thoroughly discredit this theory. For two reasons:

                      1) Though a word may remain similar and be present in all languages, the meaning may change. For example, just because all languages may have the word "car", it may have been applied at one era to a CARRIAGE and in another to a HORSELESS CARRIAGE, or automobile. Radically different definition. There are tons of examples in IE languages for trees changing not the word, but the meaning. And of course, if you lose meaning, you lose all. If palm means pine in one era, well, you see where I am going.

                      .
                      The Russian palaeolinguists did give due weight to the limitations of linguoplasticity, and confined their work to elemental ambient features ("mountain" is hard to misname or distort the meaning!) Mind you, I never understood how technically they accomplished their research.
                      Cavalli Sforza has been highly respectable in genetics research and was noble (after two years of invidiously brittle flack) in conceding his view of the Neolithic conversion when his romantic conjecture was negated by Sykes. Is he such a heavyweight as to "thoroughly" (big boys never do that, even in their own field) discredit paleolinguistic work?

                      Your point of caution is correct but the example is not well-chosen.
                      "CAR" is such a fundamental root in IEspeak that any language without it need not be engaged. I like Karma, CAR-MA meaning " CARriage (translocation) MAndate" , or for Yoga students, "if you go on like that you will be stuck with it" . It even got into Japanese as KAMA ; or am I doing a Sforza?

                      How about restating your motion to " IE Language was distributed largely or partly by Hg 'I' subclade tribes" This is not only defensible, but a fit subject for further research.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X