Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My JTest Results.

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

  • #46
    bottleneck populations

    I noticed in the original entry of a blog on the J-test (not this site) the creator of J-test made a comparison of Jewish and Finnish populations: When using calculators for either group, false readings could occur because what each test is picking up are the genetic influences of the various founder groups that make up Jews (or Finns) and not necessarily strong indications of a Jewish (or Finnish) background. He gave the example of significant amount of Finnish genes showing up in Danish and Norwegian populations, which he believed to be "unexpected."

    I for one, fully expect to see evidence of Finnish genes in a Norwegian person, and I am basing that on Scandinavian settlement history.

    Any thoughts on this, as it relates to the population of interest in the J-test: Ashkenazi Jews?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Bartot View Post
      Italian law
      Italy: Possibly alone in this respect, Italian nationality law bestows citizenship jure sanguinis. There is no limit of generations for the citizenship via blood, but the Italian ancestor born in Italian territories before 1861 had to die after 1861 anywhere in the world without losing the Italian citizenship before death to being able to continue the jure sanguinis chain. This is required because 1861 is the year that the Unification of the Italian territory took place. Another constraint is that each descendant of the ancestor through whom citizenship is claimed jure sanguinis can pass on citizenship only if the descendant was a citizen at the time of the birth of the person to whom they are passing it. So, if any person in the chain renounces or otherwise loses the Italian citizenship and then has a child, that child is not an Italian citizen jure sanguinis. A further constraint is that until January 1, 1948, Italian law did not permit women to pass on citizenship. Persons born before that date are not Italian citizens jure sanguinis if their line of descent from an Italian citizen depends on a female at some point before 1948.

      Your family would have been Neapolitans ethnicity and not italian ethnicity in the 1500's....there was no such thing as Italian etnicity until 1861 ( 1928 for lombards, veneti, trentini and friuilani)

      Think of Italian before 1861 like this below.

      swedes, norwegians, danes = Scandinavians
      neapolitans, venetians, ligurians, tuscans etc = Italians
      portuguese, galicians, catalonians, castilians = Iberians
      welsh, english, scots, irish, cornish etc = british

      These are Geographical expressions and not an ethnicity
      You are mixing up two concepts - citizenship and ethnicity. Yes, there was no united Italian nation-state with a government and citizens until 1860. However, the Italian people existed through many centuries based on a common language and culture. Sure, there were city-states and different dialects and cultural practices. Many nations have regional differences, not just Italy. But how did an Italian nation come into being in 1860 if there was no concept of an Italian people before then?

      Comment


      • #48
        Ethnicity and citizenship are 2 different things, and bartot is mixing them up. I'm an American citizen but I'm not ethnically American. The Italian peoples have existed for 2000 years.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Bartot View Post
          this for jew

          Israel: In addition to Israeli citizenship being granted to all ethnic groups and religions (a) by virtue of birth in Israel or (b) by naturalisation after five years' residency and the acquisition of a basic knowledge of Hebrew, (c) the Law of Return confers an automatic right to citizenship on any immigrant to Israel who is Jewish by birth or conversion, or who has a Jewish parent, grandparent or spouse or who is the spouse of a child of a Jew or the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew.
          and
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return


          Hebrew seems to be the language spoken by Israelis/jews .........that makes sense, so you could be a jew or non-jew even though you where classified a hebrew.
          You left out that birth right of the laws of return is born to a Jewish mother or must convert. People who are born to a Jewish mother or converted get automatic citizenship. The Jewish mothers/woman's spouses do not have to be Jewish to get automatic citizenship to Israel


          See Laws of return
          This is from Israel government web http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive...rn%205710-1950

          Definition

          4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

          PS I have an Arab Christian friend who was born in Israel and is a citizen of Israel because he was born there

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
            You are mixing up two concepts - citizenship and ethnicity. Yes, there was no united Italian nation-state with a government and citizens until 1860. However, the Italian people existed through many centuries based on a common language and culture. Sure, there were city-states and different dialects and cultural practices. Many nations have regional differences, not just Italy. But how did an Italian nation come into being in 1860 if there was no concept of an Italian people before then?
            I am talking about ethnicity, There was no common language in Italy through Italian history, Dante the creator of the italian language in the 13th century noted/wrote in all his books the issues of strengths and faults of all the regional language of Italy prior to creating Italian. His Italian was solely a language created for the merchant and artisian class for Italy, ( the nobility still communicated in Latin). This Italian language , only gained in an
            Last edited by Bartot; 9 November 2012, 12:31 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Bartot View Post
              I am talking about ethnicity, There was no common language in Italy through Italian history, Dante the creator of the italian language in the 13th century noted/wrote in all his books the issues of strengths and faults of all the regional language of Italy prior to creating Italian. His Italian was solely a language created for the merchant and artisian class for Italy, ( the nobility still communicated in Latin). This Italian language , only gained in any strength in southern tuscany ( siena area ) and had only 600,000 speakers out of 22million people when Italy formed in 1861 ( check the italian consensus )....common language can never be used for ethnicity for Italy.
              Basically the regional languages of italian are far older than italian and Italian was never a language created by the community........some linguistic classify it as a artificial language
              I think you make too much of how different various dialects were throughout Italy. Dialects existed, but they did not reach the level of different languages. I doubt it would be possible for a totally separate language, based in one region of Italy, to be imposed on the entire peninsula. Instead, the Italian of Dante, as you describe, was merely a more literate, standardized version of the various dialects of Italian spoken throughout the peninsula.

              More importantly (and to get back to the subject of this thread), genomic analysis shows that there is an Italian ethnicity, with some differences between northern Italy and Sicily/southern Italy. If you compare autosomal analysis between northern Italians, Sicilians/southern Italians, Germans, Russians and Spaniards, do you doubt that northern Italians and Sicilians/southern Italians will be much more similar to each other than they are with the other ethnicities? How could autosomal analysis pick out different ethnicities, including Italian, if they don't exist?

              Originally posted by Bartot View Post
              In 1820 , the Congress of Vienna , a meeting of ALL european leaders, clearly stated that there where no such thing as an italian ethnicity.......
              Since when is it the right of foreign states to decide whether a people exist or not? If a people do not have a state, it's up to them whether they decide to form one. The history you cite below about foreign occupation of lands where Italians lived says nothing about whether Italians are one ethnicity or whether Italians have the right to form their own state. The Congress of Vienna's statement that there wasn't any such thing as an Italian ethnicity had more to do with the wish of foreign rulers to profit from their control of foreign lands than with scientific fact. It was Italian nationalism and self-determination which corrected the Congress of Vienna's self-interested declaration.

              Originally posted by Bartot View Post
              The Italian nation only came to exist due to the long wars of trying to kick out foreign states from the Italian penisula...this all started in 1494 with the french invasion of milan and naples.
              After the Napoleon wars, the royals of europe decided there would be no more republican nations, so, Venice ( after 1100 years of independence ) as well as lombardy and tuscany went to the Austrians, the Genoese went to the french, south Italy went to the boubons of Spain etc etc. Only the Papal states remain tree. from this point started a policy of removing the foreigners...there was never any talk of uniting Italy. The King ( house of Savoy , old french house) wanted only the north of italy, his deputy cavor was trying to give the central oand south to the vatican ( papal states)

              I explained what Italian meant before 1861......this is history as it is written down.....it's a pity nationalism ( which started in the 18th century) has the biggest % of lies and propaganda and covers up the truth
              Last edited by MMaddi; 9 November 2012, 12:52 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                I think you make too much of how different various dialects were throughout Italy. Dialects existed, but they did not reach the level of different languages. I doubt it would be possible for a totally separate language, based in one region of Italy, to be imposed on the entire peninsula. Instead, the Italian of Dante, as you describe, was merely a more literate, standardized version of the various dialects of Italian spoken throughout the peninsula.

                More importantly (and to get back to the subject of this thread), genomic analysis shows that there is an Italian ethnicity, with some differences between northern Italy and Sicily/southern Italy. If you compare autosomal analysis between northern Italians, Sicilians/southern Italians, Germans, Russians and Spaniards, do you doubt that northern Italians and Sicilians/southern Italians will be much more similar to each other than they are with the other ethnicities? How could autosomal analysis pick out different ethnicities, including Italian, if they don't exist?
                Firstly - there is no difference in todays version of language and dialect, as an example, croatian was a dialect of yugoslavia and it became a language when croatia became a nation, same would happen if as an example sicily was to gain independence...sicilian would never remain classified as a dialect.
                Basically, the regional italian languages are dialects of Latin , so they are called vulgar-latin with 2 main branches, gallic-iberian and gallic-itlalic.
                And italian language ia a dialect of the regional italian languages.

                In regards to automals, who seem to be taking the nationalistic approach instead of the historical cultural approach...clearly a distorted result in the long run. The only original Italian people at the time of the bronze age, whers Ligurians in all of northern italy, umbrians in central italy and Oscans in southern italy...all the rest like, Etruscans, romans, veneti, lombards, abbruzzi , piemontese etc etc where migrational people. You cannot say these people are all ethnically italian because you end up distorting admixtures from other regions into Italian.


                Since when is it the right of foreign states to decide whether a people exist or not? If a people do not have a state, it's up to them whether they decide to form one. The history you cite below about foreign occupation of lands where Italians lived says nothing about whether Italians are one ethnicity or whether Italians have the right to form their own state. The Congress of Vienna's statement that there wasn't any such thing as an Italian ethnicity had more to do with the wish of foreign rulers to profit from their control of foreign lands than with scientific fact. It was Italian nationalism and self-determination which corrected the Congress of Vienna's self-interested declaration.
                pardon, you have the issue currently in catalonia, ........they want to exist as non-spaniards and a "foreign" power Spain/castilians is preventing this.

                The Italian ethnicity on the creation of the Italian nation written by the first Italian government clearly states in writing there was no Italians, granted this was citizens, but the fact was, even "italians recognised there where no italians.
                If you explain what ethnicity is , then we can concur...as far as what I read, it seems there is no definte result, there is a hint that some cultures in the italian peninsula gained italian ethnicity at different times in history after the fall of the roman empire.

                While its good to be nationalistic , its also pointless for admixture results
                Last edited by Bartot; 9 November 2012, 02:18 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Bartot View Post

                  In regards to automals, who seem to be taking the nationalistic approach instead of the historical cultural approach...clearly a distorted result in the long run. The only original Italian people at the time of the bronze age, whers Ligurians in all of northern italy, umbrians in central italy and Oscans in southern italy...all the rest like, Etruscans, romans, veneti, lombards, abbruzzi , piemontese etc etc where migrational people. You cannot say these people are all ethnically italian because you end up distorting admixtures from other regions into Italian.
                  I think I understand your reasoning now. You prefer to identify individuals with their ancient, prehistoric languages and ethnicities. At least this is how it seems to me.

                  If that's the case, why are you interested at all in autosomal DNA testing and admixture analysis? Given how human migrations have taken place across Europe since prehistoric times, you will not find any pure prehistoric peoples or ethnicities. Like it or not, new ethnicities have been formed by these migrations, which will affect what you see in admixture analysis. In general, they correspond to modern nation states. What you will get from autosomal admixture analysis is what the migrations have created on the ground, not in some anthropological study of prehistoric times.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
                    You left out that birth right of the laws of return is born to a Jewish mother or must convert. People who are born to a Jewish mother or converted get automatic citizenship. The Jewish mothers/woman's spouses do not have to be Jewish to get automatic citizenship to Israel


                    See Laws of return
                    This is from Israel government web http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive...rn%205710-1950

                    Definition

                    4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

                    PS I have an Arab Christian friend who was born in Israel and is a citizen of Israel because he was born there
                    Clearly there is confusion.
                    I stated the jews as hebrews because they speak hebrew, same as french are french because they speak french language.

                    In regards to admixtures , its impossible to allow people who are non-jews to gain only certain alleles which represent jewishness.
                    How many jews over time became non-jews, how many people gained jewish alleles while never even knowing what a jew was.

                    This clearly indicates that the ashkenazi marker is higher than what it is to be classified as purely jew, so you need to lower it a bit for non-jews, then you need to raise it a bit when you add some middle-eastern to it. Its not 100% of the percentage indicated is jew, this is impossible

                    Take me for an example...I have 6.8% of Askenazi, my BGA test clearly defines me firstly as 100% european ( this test only covers 2000 years), secondly, only 2 chromoses have this marker and both on the female portion. .......What does this all mean, clearly I only gained my jewishness outside of the middle-east, it was female only ( forced marriage arrangement or rape) or , .....you tell me.
                    Last edited by Bartot; 9 November 2012, 02:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                      I think I understand your reasoning now. You prefer to identify individuals with their ancient, prehistoric languages and ethnicities. At least this is how it seems to me.

                      If that's the case, why are you interested at all in autosomal DNA testing and admixture analysis? Given how human migrations have taken place across Europe since prehistoric times, you will not find any pure prehistoric peoples or ethnicities. Like it or not, new ethnicities have been formed by these migrations, which will affect what you see in admixture analysis. In general, they correspond to modern nation states. What you will get from autosomal admixture analysis is what the migrations have created on the ground, not in some anthropological study of prehistoric times.
                      Nationalism has no place to define ones admixtures, you need to go back, way back. these admixtures are an indication of where you are from over time. the areas are weighted by certain markers, these areas can be used by you to define your path.

                      The Geno test which is purely for this ancient trails clearly have it wrong in how they define people based on todays national borders. ( as stated by others in other forums who have done the tests).

                      In regards to myself, I can clearly link my ancestral path via the K13 test, which matches my known knowledge , my BGA chromosone knowledge and other tests. to get a rough idea on my trail.

                      what do others use this admixture results for......marriages and unions? clearly they are missing out on the big picture
                      Last edited by Bartot; 9 November 2012, 02:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Bartot View Post
                        I am talking about ethnicity, There was no common language in Italy through Italian history, Dante the creator of the italian language in the 13th century noted/wrote in all his books the issues of strengths and faults of all the regional language of Italy prior to creating Italian. His Italian was solely a language created for the merchant and artisian class for Italy, ( the nobility still communicated in Latin). This Italian language , only gained in an
                        I believe Dante is credited with standardizing the Italian language- not creating it.

                        I have nothing more to add because I feel like I am in a parallel universe with the evil Spock and the Machiavellian Captain James T. Kirk.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by mollyblum View Post
                          I believe Dante is credited with standardizing the Italian language- not creating it.

                          I have nothing more to add because I feel like I am in a parallel universe with the evil Spock and the Machiavellian Captain James T. Kirk.
                          Then we did a crap job

                          tomato - known once as a golden apple

                          Mela is apple in italian, its pomo in northern italy, pom in french
                          tomato = pomodoro , = apple of gold

                          I wonder why italian does not have meladoro...hmm....

                          his syntax of italian is stuffed, no wonder linguistics around the world are baffled.

                          he did not take into consideration anything

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Spez...%93Rimini_Line

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Bartot View Post
                            Then we did a crap job

                            tomato - known once as a golden apple

                            Mela is apple in italian, its pomo in northern italy, pom in french
                            tomato = pomodoro , = apple of gold

                            I wonder why italian does not have meladoro...hmm....

                            his syntax of italian is stuffed, no wonder linguistics around the world are baffled.

                            he did not take into consideration anything

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Spez...%93Rimini_Line
                            And to think that his Divine Comedy is thought of as one of the greatest works of European literature and perhaps the greatest work of Italian literature!

                            By the way, are you aware that Dante was influenced by the medieval Sicilian School in his development of poetry. According to Wikipedia: "The poems of the Sicilians hardly portray real women or situations (Frederick's song cannot be read as autobiographical), but the style and language are remarkable, since the Sicilians (as Dante called them) created the first Italian literary standard by enriching the existing vernacular base, probably inspired by popular love songs, with new words of Latin and Provençal origin." More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_School

                            And from another website - http://www.readeasily.com/dante-alighieri/index.php - "Not much is known about Dante's education, and it is presumed he studied at home. We know he studied Tuscan poetry, at a time when the Sicilian School (Scuola poetica siciliana), a cultural group from Sicily, was becoming known in Tuscany. His interests brought him to discover Provençal minstrels and poets, and Latin culture (with an obvious particular devotion to Virgil)."


                            What does this say about Dante's Italian only being applicable to Tuscany or northern Italy? It certainly sounds to me like what we call Italian today developed out of contributions from Sicily to northern Italy.
                            Last edited by MMaddi; 9 November 2012, 04:52 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Bartot View Post
                              Clearly there is confusion.
                              I stated the jews as hebrews because they speak hebrew, same as french are french because they speak french language.

                              In regards to admixtures , its impossible to allow people who are non-jews to gain only certain alleles which represent jewishness.
                              How many jews over time became non-jews, how many people gained jewish alleles while never even knowing what a jew was.

                              This clearly indicates that the ashkenazi marker is higher than what it is to be classified as purely jew, so you need to lower it a bit for non-jews, then you need to raise it a bit when you add some middle-eastern to it. Its not 100% of the percentage indicated is jew, this is impossible

                              Take me for an example...I have 6.8% of Askenazi, my BGA test clearly defines me firstly as 100% european ( this test only covers 2000 years), secondly, only 2 chromoses have this marker and both on the female portion. .......What does this all mean, clearly I only gained my jewishness outside of the middle-east, it was female only ( forced marriage arrangement or rape) or , .....you tell me.
                              People in Israel speak Hebrew they may also speak Arabic. The Jewish teachings are in both languages. The Ashkenazi speak Yiddish which is a cross between German and Hebrew. The Sephardic (Spanish Jews) speak Ladino which is a cross between Spanish and Hebrew.

                              Being that the Jews permit for conversion means "Anyone" can convert to Judaism though certain rituals preformed through what they call Kosher Mikvah or through briss. You dont have to be born to a Jewish mother to be a Jew, you can convert. Were any of your ancestors converts? I dont know about the marker you are talking about but maybe someone else can answer you about this specific marker. Non Jews can match Jews on DNA especially if one descends from someone who converted to Judaism.

                              Sorry if I am asking something you have already posted but leaving out your BGA do you actually have cousin matches to other people who claim Ashkenazi. If you do try to follow their paper trial to see if it leads you to any of your ancestors
                              Last edited by Yaffa; 9 November 2012, 05:14 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                                And to think that his Divine Comedy is thought of as one of the greatest works of European literature and perhaps the greatest work of Italian literature!

                                By the way, are you aware that Dante was influenced by the medieval Sicilian School in his development of poetry. According to Wikipedia: "The poems of the Sicilians hardly portray real women or situations (Frederick's song cannot be read as autobiographical), but the style and language are remarkable, since the Sicilians (as Dante called them) created the first Italian literary standard by enriching the existing vernacular base, probably inspired by popular love songs, with new words of Latin and Provençal origin." More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_School

                                And from another website - http://www.readeasily.com/dante-alighieri/index.php - "Not much is known about Dante's education, and it is presumed he studied at home. We know he studied Tuscan poetry, at a time when the Sicilian School (Scuola poetica siciliana), a cultural group from Sicily, was becoming known in Tuscany. His interests brought him to discover Provençal minstrels and poets, and Latin culture (with an obvious particular devotion to Virgil)."


                                What does this say about Dante's Italian only being applicable to Tuscany or northern Italy? It certainly sounds to me like what we call Italian today developed out of contributions from Sicily to northern Italy.
                                You are correct in that he was more influenced by southern italian , due to the fact the florentines ( north-east tuscany ) tried to kill him which is why he escaped to ravenna and is still buried there. The lucchese and pisans ( north-west tuscany) said he was uninvited.
                                He disliked northern italian languages because they was provenzal based ( due to ancient gallic influences), in which he referrred to them as L'Oc ( occitan ) languages.....similar to southern french. He actually called northern italian languages, barbarian languages.
                                The 'barbarians" shielded him from the tuscans,

                                And yes, I do have his books.

                                Still ethnicity in Italians is gained via region over different times.

                                Maybe the ancient greeks where correct when they named Italy, Italy....they said from the Toe to the Po is Italic people, the rest are barbarians

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X