tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post7721082924802773888..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Back-migration of Yeniseian into Asia from BeringiaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39347966979697324562014-04-23T23:58:37.822+03:002014-04-23T23:58:37.822+03:00@Gary Moore
The word if indeed represented in Eya...@Gary Moore<br /><br />The word if indeed represented in Eyak, is no problem. thiss word could still be adopted from the "Altaic" sprachbund. In fact, I would be delighted to see an adoption from the "Altaic" sprachbund in the AET languages.<br /><br />Again, the Hittite (Nesian) word is derived of Proto-IE: *wod-(or/en-)'water' > Hittite: watar n. (r/n), dat.-loc. weteni (Friedrich 249-250)(Sergei Nikolayev). This word is an isogloss with Old Greek: hǘdōr, -atos n. `Wasser' and Germanic: *wat-an-, *wat-ar- n. among others.<br /><br />Also note, Proto-Finnic *veci, from Proto-Finno-Ugric *wete, from Proto-Uralic *weti. Cognates include Hungarian víz. May be a cognate of Proto-Indo-European *wódr̥. Compare to Scottich Gaelic uisge, Irish uisce, Russian вода (vodá) or English wet.<br /><br />Proto-Uralic is considered to be about the same age Proto-AET, both about 5kya. That presents some difficulty.<br /><br />AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4540423488138562732014-04-20T20:58:50.524+03:002014-04-20T20:58:50.524+03:00@AdygheChabadi -
"Hmmm, it would appear the...@AdygheChabadi -<br /><br /><br />"Hmmm, it would appear the Yenseian adopted this word from the "Altaic" sprachbund! The Turkic word is well represented in that family, but also other members of the "Altaic" sprachbund. Cf. http://www.academia.edu/3678465/Kol_lake_flood_source_moor_in_Northem_Mongolian_Hydronyms"<br /><br />Except a related word is also found in Eyak, a North American Dene language: <i>kʼu=leh</i> (n.) 'rain'. BTW - The word <i>ta</i> is also the word for 'lake' in Ainu, which has the word <i>wakka</i> for 'water'.<br /><br />The Uralic derivation for the word for 'water' in Indo-European is not accepted by most scholars. The most commonly accepted form for the *PIE word is <i>h₂ekʷeh₂</i> (commonly written as 'akwa'), and the Proto Germanic form is usally stated as <i>*ahwō</i>, which is very close to Proto Iroquoian <i>*ahwa</i>. The proposed Indo-Uralic derivation fails because it does not take into account the numerous root words for 'water' in various branches of Indo-European that begin with 'a'', such as Persian <i>ab</i>. I already demonstrated in a post in another thread in these blogs that the Hittite equivalent probably at one time had the initial 'a-' and transposed behind the second syllable before it was dropped altogether. This may have allied at one time to Tocharian <i>war</i>. In fact, I suspect that both the water words <i>tar</i> and <i>war</i> may have both acquired the final '-r' sound as an areal trend towards rhotacism in the region near the Caspian Sea, where mixing of Iroquoian and Dene languages may have taken place, resulting in a compound word for 'water' in Hittite (<i>(a)wa+ta(r)</i>).<br /><br />Regarding water-related words in Uralic languages, they may have ultimately been derived from the Dene words for 'water' (<i>ta</i>/<i>to</i>/<i>tu</i>) through assibilation. (<i>t</i> --> <i>s</i>) Ex. Old Turkish <i>Suv</i>, Finnish <i>vesi</i>. In fact, Proto-Finnic <i>*weti</i> may itself have been a compound word for 'water' like Hittite <i>'wa-a-tar</i> resulting from a merger of two linguistically distinct groups. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31059533444348973442014-04-16T22:50:16.141+03:002014-04-16T22:50:16.141+03:00Correction(s): "Also, I think Fournet's i...Correction(s): "Also, I think Fournet's is on to something..." = "Also, I think Fournet is on to something..."<br /><br />@Kristiina<br /><br />I think it is Ket. You also quoted a paper which said, <i>"The Saami word and its Khanty cognate can therefore be regarded as reflexes of the original Uralic word *śäčä ‘water’, retained in the northern periphery of the Finno-Ugrian language area but replaced by an Indo-European borrowing elsewhere."</i> That is quite interesting and suggests that Mr. Fournet IS on the right track in his proposal. <br /><br />@Gary Moore<br /><br />Yeniseian: tat, tet, dat are reflexes of "Proto-Yeniseian" *cēˑc (E. Vajda), *ses (Starostin), *set / *tet (Werner), therefore, what you propose is not possible.<br /><br /><i>"What is interesting is the similarity between the proto Yeniseian *kʰul 'water' (E. Vajda) and Old Turkic Köl, 'lake'. The Old Turkic word for 'water', (Suv, is very different."</i><br /><br />Hmmm, it would appear the Yenseian adopted this word from the "Altaic" sprachbund! The Turkic word is well represented in that family, but also other members of the "Altaic" sprachbund. Cf. http://www.academia.edu/3678465/Kol_lake_flood_source_moor_in_Northem_Mongolian_Hydronyms<br /><br />Yeniseian *kʰul 'water' can now be ruled out as a candidate for a native Yeniseian word, it appears to be Turkic. This would seem to further the notion of Yeniseian being intrusive to Siberia. I wonder if the language retains any native word(s) for water? <br /><br />Also, about the junior words for 'water', see my comments to Kristiina in this post.<br /><br />Also, Hittite (Nesian): wa-a-tar is descended of PIE *wod-(or/en-) 'water'. See here...http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\piet&first=1&off=&text_proto=wod-%28or%2Fen-%29&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&text_meaning=&method_meaning=substring&ic_meaning=on&text_hitt=&method_hitt=substring&ic_hitt=on&text_tokh=&method_tokh=substring&ic_tokh=on&text_ind=&method_ind=substring&ic_ind=on&text_avest=&method_avest=substring&ic_avest=on&text_iran=&method_iran=substring&ic_iran=on&text_arm=&method_arm=substring&ic_arm=on&text_greek=&method_greek=substring&ic_greek=on&text_slav=&method_slav=substring&ic_slav=on&text_balt=&method_balt=substring&ic_balt=on&text_germ=&method_germ=substring&ic_germ=on&text_lat=&method_lat=substring&ic_lat=on&text_ital=&method_ital=substring&ic_ital=on&text_celt=&method_celt=substring&ic_celt=on&text_alb=&method_alb=substring&ic_alb=on&text_rusmean=&method_rusmean=substring&ic_rusmean=on&text_refer=&method_refer=substring&ic_refer=on&text_comment=&method_comment=substring&ic_comment=on&text_any=&method_any=substring&sort=proto&ic_any=on<br /><br />About you undoing the damage of the past, I am, in a way, inclined to agree and on a different level inclined to disagree. I guess I am in the same vein as many linguists. I just do not see the connection. Again, one has to be very careful about serious research. I was once told by a professional linguist friend that when you begin to see cognates even where there are none, it is time to step back and do something else for a bit, then you can come back to the task with refreshed eyes and mind. AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54940242971253879802014-04-14T18:31:56.323+03:002014-04-14T18:31:56.323+03:00AdygheChabadi -
"Also, I think Fournet's...AdygheChabadi -<br /><br />"Also, I think Fournet's is on to something with his comparison of Uralic forms to Yeniseian forms. I do not agree with many of his comparisons, but the one's concerning Yeniseian hydronyms, "sas, zes, zas, šeš, tat, tet, dat, and [possibly] for set, čet, šet or lat, let " seem somewhat valid.<br /><br />In my study of Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic, it is commonly seen that forms for "to wet; wet" and "to pour; to flow" etc...have reflexes for "river" and/ or "water" in the daughter languages."<br /><br />If you look at the intrusive pattern of Y-haplogroup R1b in NE and central Africa. I think we can see that there is a likely vector for linguistic influence from SW/Central Asia, and this might explain the similarities that you noted in water-related words. <br /><br />In general, words for 'river' or 'lake' in most languages are strongly linked to words for 'water' or 'to flow - for example <i>*h₂ekw-eh₂-</i> in *PIE, <i>potamos</i> ("flowing water") in Greek, 'fluvius' in Latin. Frankly, if these hydronyms are of Uralic origin, then they ought to bear a much stronger association to the primary words for 'water' or 'river' in Uralic. I suspect when we see words for 'wet' or 'damp', in many cases we are seeing 'junior words' for 'water' that are a relic of the less dominant language in the case of linguistic mergers - e.g. 'wed-' in northern IE languages (Uralic into IE) or 'tar' in Indo-Iranian (Dene into IE). The Yeniseian <i>tat</i>, <i>tet</i>, <i>dat</i> correspond well to Dene <i>ta</i>, <i>to</i>, <i>tu</i> forms for 'water', and <i>sas, <i>zes</i>, <i>zas</i>, šeš</i> can be derived from these forms by assibilation (e.g. Anc Grk '<i>su</i> from *PIE <i>tu</i>). What is interesting is the similarity between the proto Yeniseian <i>*kʰul</i> 'water' (E. Vajda) and Old Turkic <i>Köl</i>, 'lake'. The Old Turkic word for 'water', (<i>Suv</i>, is very different.<br /><br />BTW - I earlier noted the remarkable parallel between *PIE <i>*h₂ekw-eh₂-</i> ('river') and its Cherokee equivalent <i>equoni</i>. The <i>-ni</i> ending happens to be a locative particle in *PIE: ex. <i>*nisdos</i> 'nest' - literally, "place where (the bird) sits"). This may shed some light on the seeming paradox in Proto Iroquoian of two forms for 'lake', <i>*otar</i> and <i>*nytar</i>. The <i>ny-</i> affix of the latter form is probably a locative related to the the *PIE counterpart. (As related earlier, the <i>-tar</i> word particle is probably derived from a Dene word for 'water' and may be generically related to the <i>-tar</i> component of Hittite <i>wa-a-tar</i>.)<br /><br />As a general observation, I think that Greenberg and many post-war linguists may have had an agenda in their work: to undo the damage caused by the unfortunate fusion of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology that formed the pseudo-science behind Nazi ideology, and to restore the unity of West Eurasian culture. Greenberg characterized any relationship between Native American languages, which he lumped together as 'Amerind', to his "Eurasiatic" family as very remote, despite evidence to the contrary. I think that a major reason that Greenberg and other linguists did not find any links between North American and Eurasian languages is, frankly, because they were not looking for them and did not feel that any such links would have contributed to the narrative that they were trying to weave.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60461995391255770752014-04-14T11:36:14.120+03:002014-04-14T11:36:14.120+03:00By the way, the Saami word for water is čáhci. All...By the way, the Saami word for water is čáhci. All other Uralic words for water are related to forms resembling the finnish "vesi/veden". In which Yeniseian language do you have šeš? It is similar to this Saami word.<br /><br />In this paper (http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/tvarminne.html) they say that <br />”The common Saami word for ‘water’ (e.g. North Saami čáhci) has namely a cognate in nowhere else but Khanty, where the meaning is ‘tide, flood’. The most plausible scenario involves a semantic shift from ‘water’ to ‘tide, flood’ in Khanty, which is consistent with the fact that the common Khanty word for ‘water’ is based on the root meaning ‘ice’. The Saami word and its Khanty cognate can therefore be regarded as reflexes of the original Uralic word *śäčä ‘water’, retained in the northern periphery of the Finno-Ugrian language area but replaced by an Indo-European borrowing elsewhere.”<br /><br />As now we know that Khantys are genetically among the most Native American like people in Eurasia (together with Selkups), it could just as well be that this word postulated as the original Uralic word for water is, instead, a result of Yeniseian backflow from the Northeast.<br /><br />According to the recent Anzick paper, Khantys share with Yeniseian resembling groups 20% of their genes! Selkups share even more. When you compare Northern Khantys (c. 63% yDNA N) with Nganassan (over 90% yDNA N), the difference is striking, as Nganassan do not have any Yeniseian like ancestry at all. <br />Anzick paper is available here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13025.html#figures<br />Kristiinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02994105875605082112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39348414208442059222014-04-10T21:43:29.845+03:002014-04-10T21:43:29.845+03:00@Gary Moore
Yes, I have long had Arnaud Fournet&#...@Gary Moore<br /><br />Yes, I have long had Arnaud Fournet's paper and even shared it with Kristiina. Also I have many of Mr. Vajda's articles also...the one you mentioned included.<br /><br />Also, I think Fournet's is on to something with his comparison of Uralic forms to Yeniseian forms. I do not agree with many of his comparisons, but the one's concerning Yeniseian hydronyms, "sas, zes, zas, šeš, tat, tet, dat, and [possibly] for set, čet, šet or lat, let " seem somewhat valid.<br /><br />In my study of Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic, it is commonly seen that forms for "to wet; wet" and "to pour; to flow" etc...have reflexes for "river" and/ or "water" in the daughter languages.<br /><br />The similarity bewteen the Pumpokol words and Dene words could be a case of mere look-a-likes.<br /><br />I suggest you look at the Uralic etymological database at starling.rinet.ru...http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=\data\uralic\uralet&root=config&morpho=0<br /><br />Again, I am skeptical of comparing Iroquoian forms with IE...one has to be very careful in analyzing possible adoptions.<br /><br />Also, Vajda himself admits that there are some shortcomings in his analysis even though he followed rigorous standards. Starostin and Campbell pointed many of those shortcomings out and that prompted Vajda to respond with the above words.<br /><br />@Kristiina:<br /><br />I agree that Tungusic seems quite old in the region because it forms a substrate beneath other languages in the area.<br /><br />The linguistic data seems to support a great deal of what you posit.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58917644445742501082014-04-09T18:01:17.607+03:002014-04-09T18:01:17.607+03:00Here's a link to Vajda's paper discussing ...Here's a link to Vajda's paper discussing borrow words in Yeniseian:<br /><br />http://linguistics.uoregon.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Vajda-Ket-Loans.pdf<br /><br />Vajda's talk on the Ket is available on YouTube, and he brings up some interesting points. Vajda theorizes that the population of east Asia may have once had more Y haplotype diversity before the migration to the Americas, but the other YHGs were outcompeted by carriers of YHG Q, Some of these other YHGs, he suggests, may have survived in trace amounts in the Americas. (This may account for the R1a found in some populations in central/South America noted by Shurr and Sherry.) Also, he discusses the reindeer herder wedge theory that may account for the linguistic and genetic gap between the Yeniseians and North Americans. He noted that is was likely that other groups that were closely related to North American populations were once present in eastern Siberia but were pushed aside or absorbed by the wave of reindeer herding peoples.<br /><br />I think that if you read his paper and watch his video lecture explaining the parallels between Dene and Yeniseian languages, you will be convinced of the Dene-Yeniseian connection.<br /><br /> <br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11817666738115096242014-04-09T06:33:13.222+03:002014-04-09T06:33:13.222+03:00terryt you are so correct. At the Pennsylvania So...terryt you are so correct. At the Pennsylvania Society for Archeology this past weekend, I alluded to professors who would rather adapt their Beringia dates and other absurdities such as claiming they paused for 10,000 years waiting for a passage to open to the U.S. My paper was entitled: Chasing the Beringian Land Bridge Myth and Finding Solutrean Boats. At the keynote dinner that night, a husband and wife, both professors, sat at our table. As soon as the topic worked around to Beringia and the apparent fraud that triggered its creation, she became irate, told me I had failed to do sufficient research and left the table in a huff. I learned after that she also writes archeology textbooks. As a a lifelong professional journalist, publicist and author, I'm far less thin-skinned than she. I also realize such behavior usually indicates my writing as hit a sensitive nerve. While I realize it's likely there was more than one migration to the Americas, I believe they all came by sea, just as Thor Heyerdahl demostrated back in the 1940s on Kon Tiki. I believe the Solutreans came here roughly 20,000 years ago and have found multiple indicators to that effect, including drawings done by them in the caves of Altamira. Based on the contraditions of time, date, weather and the LGM, I seriously doubt the credibility of those who continue to maintain the first migration was across Beringia. Larry Monizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03091395303358901573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90081058192418892842014-04-08T10:43:31.253+03:002014-04-08T10:43:31.253+03:00Sorry for double posting. On second thoughts, D4e4...Sorry for double posting. On second thoughts, D4e4 may in fact be a Tungusic marker. It is found in Evens and Oroks. I think that Yukaghir is a mixed language. There may well be a Uralic layer on a Tungusic/ Chukotko-Kamchatkan basis.Kristiinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02994105875605082112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20033793044418496792014-04-08T09:39:37.726+03:002014-04-08T09:39:37.726+03:00I think that U4a1 is very old in western Siberia, ...I think that U4a1 is very old in western Siberia, it was found in ancient Russian-Karelian burials dated c. 7700–7300 BP. C4a2 is typical for the Altaians and surely old in the Baikal area. It is common in Selkups and was probably brought in the area with them. Instead, C4b is typical for Uralic groups and was probably introduced with them. D4e is widespread in East Asia, and one of its subclades, D2b / D4e1, is found in the extreme Northeast (Yukaghir, Eskimos, Aleuts, Chukchi) and in Altaians and Daur. D4e4 is a candidate for the Beringian backflow. A4b probably came from Altai and the Baikal area, and perhaps with the Kets. However, a typically Beringian and Na-Dené A2 has been detected in Selkups. Moreover, Kets and Selkups carry both A8a while Mansis and Khantys do not, and it could also be a result of a Northeastern backflow. <br />My current understanding is that the ancestors of Selkups inhabited first the Central Siberia and the Uralic groups arrived some time after the Ice Age but may have reached the far North quite late. Kets were probably the last to arrive in the area, but both the Uralic groups and Kets passed through/near Baikal/Altai and carried along local mtDNA. Tungusic groups are also old in Norteast Siberia (yDNA C3c) and their presence probably predates the presence of Uralic groups.<br />Kristiinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02994105875605082112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77893866466823196602014-04-08T09:30:00.644+03:002014-04-08T09:30:00.644+03:00Here is a link to an interesting article by Arnaud...Here is a link to an interesting article by Arnaud Fournet discussing hydronyms of Ob and Yenisei river basins. Fournet argues that the Ket and related tribes are fairly recent arrivals to western Siberia. <br /><br />http://diachronica.pagesperso-orange.fr/TMCJ_vol_3.1_Fournet_Hydronyms.pdf<br /><br />The author disagrees with Vajda's assertion that Ket has few borrow words. Furthermore, he believes that the Yeniseian speakers came to the region from the west, which contradicts the model of a back migration from the Americas. <br /><br />Fournet writes:<br /><br />"The corpus of hydronyms was first published in Maloletko (2002) and appears in Tome 3 of Werner's (2005) etymological dictionary. It provides the basis on which Werner and Vajda posit a large area of Yeniseian first-settlers. In that hypothesis the different items are linked with the following languages:<br />-<br />sas,zes,zas,šeš - reminiscent of Ket and Yugh,<br />-<br />čet,šet - reminiscent of Kot,<br />-<br />set - reminiscent of Arin,<br />-<br />tat,tet,dat - reminiscent of Pumpokol."<br /><br />The Pumpokol words for 'river' resemble the equivalents in North American Dene languages. <br /><br />Fournet goes on to write:<br /><br />"In my opinion the theory described above conflicts with a number of points which need to be developed. A first point is the phonetic structure and geographic distribution of the hydronyms which is strikingly reminiscent of sound correspondences attested in the Ugric branch of Uralic. The sound pattern<br />s~<br />l~<br />t<br /><br />exists in Ostyak dialects. For example, UEW452 *sOsV- ‘[to become wet] naß werden’: <br />- Komi (Zyrian) sëz - ‘[to become wet] feucht werden’<br />- Khanty (Ostyak) : 1. Kazym dialect lol<br />- ‘[to make wet] feucht, naß machen’<br />2. Vakh dialect lal -, jal<br />- ‘[to become wet] feucht, naß werden’<br />3. Vasjugan dialect jal<br />- ‘[to become wet] feucht, naß werden’<br />4. Kamin tat<br />- ‘[to gush forth (water)] quellen (Wasser)’<br />- Mansi (Vogul) :<br />1. Tavda dialect tat'<br />- ‘[to become wet] naß werden’<br />2. Konda dialect tot<br />- ‘[to become wet] naß werden’<br />3. Pelym dialect tit<br />- ‘[to become wet] naß werden’<br />4. Sosva dialect tit - ‘[to become wet] naß werden’<br /><br />This Uralic proto-lexeme, which can easily get specialized to mean ‘river’, can account for all formatives:<br /><br />sas, zes, zas, šeš, tat, tet, dat, and for set, čet, šet or lat, let , with a mixed phonology (initial #l- but final -t). <br /><br />Several observations can be made: (1) Hydronyms with a phonology reflecting Vasjugan dialect also exist: like jelok, a tributary of the Yenisei river, (2) Two out of three hydronyms with initial #l- are precisely located close to Vakh dialect, which has the -l- reflex (3) The items with initial #t- are located in the south, which is coherent with the internal isoglosses of Ostyak and Samoyedic dialects."<br /><br />I think the association he draws is rather weak. I would expect a word for 'river' to more closely resemble a wprd for 'water', and not just 'wet'. These forms themselves = that is, the words for 'wet' - may be borrow words and not originally Uralic - they don't look like the equivalents in Finnic. Moreover, Komi and Mansi have words for 'river' that do not resemble the hydronyms proposed by Fournet:<br /><br />ю (jū) Komi (Zyrian) / (ва (va) = 'water')<br />jā Mansi / (<i>wit</i> = 'water')<br /><br />Both of these words resemble the words for 'river' in Hungarian (<i>jo</i>) and Finnish <i>joki</i>. Contrast Fournet's proposed derivation with <i>*h₂ekw-eh₂-</i> in *PIE and <i>equoni</i> in Cherokee, both of which are rooted in a word for 'water', not just 'wet'. (BTW - I did notice in my research that the word for 'river' in Nottaway, an Iroquoian language of the east coast of the United States, is <i>joke</i>, which I have also seen transcribed as 'chi-yo-ke'. The word for 'water' in the Muskogean languages is <i>oka</i>.)<br /><br /> <br /><br /> Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74089310700162644242014-04-07T05:29:54.631+03:002014-04-07T05:29:54.631+03:00@kristiina
Thanks for the input on how the geneti...@kristiina<br /><br />Thanks for the input on how the genetics shed light on the relationship of these central Siberian groups. It certainly puts the hypothesis that the word for 'lake' is a borrow word from Dene Yeniseian. The fact that the form looks more like that of North American Dene languages is intriguing. <br /><br />@AdegyeChabadi -<br /><br />There was probably a sprachbund in this region like the famous Altaic one in NE Asia that complicstes sorting out linguistic relationships. I hope to take a closer look at Vajda's and Georg's papers regarding borrow words in these languges. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43642605333780015582014-04-06T18:51:53.351+03:002014-04-06T18:51:53.351+03:00@kristiina
That is excellent genetic evidence for...@kristiina<br /><br />That is excellent genetic evidence for Uralic being present in the region before Yeniseian. That is, of course, if the Yeniseians did not share the same genetic background in the first place. But if they did not share the same background, then what you say clearly shows that Yeniseian was intrusive and backs up the linguistic evidence solidly.<br /><br /><br />What you say about the Komi, also means that Uralic needs to be investigated for non-Siberian, non-IE adoptions. It is known that there is a substrate beneath Saamic and a few other Western Uralic languages. I do know that there is a postulated substrate beneath the Northern Samoyedic languages and it is postulated to be related to the peoples who inhabited the Taiga before the Uralic expansion. We must also contend with the Uralic substrate beneath many Turkic languages and what that implies. There is also evidence of a Tungusic substrate beneath the Yakut (Uralic) language and the Korean, Mongolic, and (some?) Turkic languages also. Which implies the Tungusic speakers were at one point more widespread. We must not leave out consideration for Yukaghiric and Uralic to be related and what that may imply. Does Yeniseian and Proto-AET (Athabaskan, Eyak, and Tlingit) contain influences from these and other isolate and non-isolate languages of Siberia. Yeniseian definitely contains such influences, but are there traces in Proto-AET?<br /><br />Also, I am about finished with your email. I have to study when you write because I know little of Siberian and Uralic genetics...superficial at best, hahaha.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32800335144034564272014-04-05T07:49:48.867+03:002014-04-05T07:49:48.867+03:00"Have you even read http://anthropogenesis.ki..."Have you even read http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/out-of-america-family-of-hypotheses/ ?" <br /><br />Yes, and it didn't make sense. I couldn't be bothered going through the whole mass disputing every single item. <br /><br />" But I'm not fine with the lack of respect for the scientific standards that out-of-America advocates for and fully meets". <br /><br />I didn't see too many 'scientific standards' in your blog. <br /><br />"I'm also saying that much light would be thrown onto human origins from the Americas in the future" <br /><br />First off you need to find some actual evidence for the belief. I am not aware of any reputable scientist who is prepared to consider it anything more than 'conspiracy theory'. <br /><br />"The denial of the possibility of the animal origin of the (Old World) man by Creationists forms a 'clade' with the denial of the possibility of the New World origin of the Old World man. Out-of-America is an 'outgroup' to both". <br /><br />But much more similar to the last, as it is based solely on faith. But I agree with Gary: it is time to get back to the topic of the post. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42428421115141563012014-04-05T02:04:42.010+03:002014-04-05T02:04:42.010+03:00@Tobus
"Then stop bringing it up every time ...@Tobus<br /><br />"Then stop bringing it up every time someone disagrees with you."<br /><br />I'm fine with disagreements. But I'm not fine with the lack of respect for the scientific standards that out-of-America advocates for and fully meets.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7696827422343038332014-04-04T23:09:22.866+03:002014-04-04T23:09:22.866+03:00@German: Like I said, out-of-America overcomes the...@German: <i>Like I said, out-of-America overcomes the Creationism vs. Darwinism debate, hence you can't use Creationism vs. Darwinism as the two options to interpret out-of-America. </i><br /><br />Then stop bringing it up every time someone disagrees with you.<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86630751110269554102014-04-04T18:10:10.665+03:002014-04-04T18:10:10.665+03:00'while I personally don't question that ho...<i>'while I personally don't question that hominins evolved from an ape-like ancestor in Africa, modern humans, or our own immediate evolutionary ancestors, likely evolved from an East Eurasian hominin that speciated into "us" in the Americas.'</i><br /><br />Close, but not close enough. Prüfer's figure 9.1 clearly indicates this ancestral hominin already was a hybrid whose heterozygosity was clearly distinct from homozygous mid-paleolithic hominins.Rokushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13883125231922541439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71357070371296073402014-04-04T09:37:49.529+03:002014-04-04T09:37:49.529+03:00Mansi, Khanty and Ket seem to share some specific ...Mansi, Khanty and Ket seem to share some specific mtDNA haplotypes, such as U4a1, C4a2, C4b, D4e4, A4b, and probably also H* haplotypes. When you check the Figure 2 in this ancient mtDNA paper (http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003296), you see that the Khanty and Mansi and Kets and Selkups are placed in the same segment. On the basis of this, it is to be expected that they also share linguistic features. Wkipedia tells us that ”around 500 AD, the Komis further divided into the Komi-Permyaks (who remained in the Kama River basin) and the Komi-Zyrians (who migrated north)”. This means that the Komi Zyrians assimilated linguistic and cultural features and genes from the groups inhabiting the far north of Central Siberia.Kristiinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02994105875605082112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5402543600324388602014-04-04T04:07:43.705+03:002014-04-04T04:07:43.705+03:00@terryT
"In fact he said that much light wou...@terryT<br /><br />"In fact he said that much light would be thrown onto human origins in the future."<br /><br />I'm also saying that much light would be thrown onto human origins from the Americas in the future, but for some reason people assume that everything was found by the year 2000 or even earlier.<br /><br />"But in the meantime he used his eyes to provide him with enough evidence to convince him that humans were much closer to African apes than they were to American monkeys (which you and Alvah seem to believe is the case). "<br /><br />Have you even read http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/out-of-america-family-of-hypotheses/ ?<br /><br />"To many others his conclusion was equally obvious, but to you it seems unbelievable because you cannot open your own eyes."<br /><br />That's exactly the argument a creationist would put forth: just look around, can't you see that this beautiful world could have only been created by God?!<br /><br />We need evidence, not appearances, and while I personally don't question that hominins evolved from an ape-like ancestor in Africa, modern humans, or our own immediate evolutionary ancestors, likely evolved from an East Eurasian hominin that speciated into "us" in the Americas.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28274228569343456342014-04-04T03:41:56.512+03:002014-04-04T03:41:56.512+03:00"I know you're obsessed with me, Terry. W..."I know you're obsessed with me, Terry. Why don't you go and read an academic paper instead". <br /><br />I invite you to provide an academic paper that supports your belief and I will certainly read it. <br /><br />"How does popular support for a theory change the nature of the facts?" <br /><br />If you had been able to supply at least some 'facts' you would at least have some scientists considering the possibility you may be correct. The lack of facts explains your lack of any sort of support, popular or otherwise. <br /><br />"It doesn't suit a creationist like you, Terry, to talk about facts. Your out-of-Antarctica model is a case in point". <br /><br />Proving, yet again, that you are an idiot. Do you really think I was serious? I used it as an example to show how ridiculous your out of America claim was by using the logic you use. And you couldn't see that? Idiot! <br /><br />"The 'appeal to authority' is to establish if there is widespread scientific support to Out of America. There isn't, so in my opinion, that makes it more like Creationism (no scientific support) than Darwinism (widespread scientific support)". <br /><br />Yes. Actually no evidence at all for out of America, just a whole lot of juggling an extremely small amount of data and correspondingly ignoring a mountain of inconvenient evidence. <br /><br />"You may have your own criteria and use it arrive at a different opinion, but please don't try to tell me that Out of America is taken seriously by the widespread scientific community. That, my creationist friend, is bullshit". <br /><br />Amen. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7357731885231217262014-04-04T01:43:10.525+03:002014-04-04T01:43:10.525+03:00@Tobus
" The "appeal to authority"...@Tobus<br /><br />" The "appeal to authority" is to establish if there is widespread scientific support to Out of America. There isn't, so in my opinion, that makes it more like Creationism (no scientific support) than Darwinism (widespread scientific support)."<br /><br />Like I said, out-of-America overcomes the Creationism vs. Darwinism debate, hence you can't use Creationism vs. Darwinism as the two options to interpret out-of-America. The proper scale is between data-driven, evolving systems of knowledge vs. dogma-driven and static systems of knowledge. The denial of the possibility of the animal origin of the (Old World) man by Creationists forms a "clade" with the denial of the possibility of the New World origin of the Old World man. Out-of-America is an "outgroup" to both.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25965028637284825942014-04-03T23:17:10.822+03:002014-04-03T23:17:10.822+03:00@Gary Moore
"It is not a reduplicative form....@Gary Moore<br /><br /><i>"It is not a reduplicative form. I followed the convention of using the 3rd person singular for the word ("his knee' - Iroqouian uses pronominal affixes.) The root word is -nigeni vs. PIE *g(e)neu.</i><br /><br />Then the two forms are not related if the (proto-)forms are Cherokee: -nigeni and PIE: *g'enw-, *g'new- "knee" (Sergei Nikolayev), *g̑enu-, *g̑neu- (J. Slocum < J. Pokorny). I need to know what the Iroquoian proto-form is.<br /><br />Also there is a well-known list of look-a-like words across all language families. They famously show how the words for "one" and "two" are similar across a number of language families.<br /><br />There is a major group of languages that are missing from your consideration...the "Altaic" sprachbund. The "Altaic" languages are postulated to have originated in the area you speak of (North East Siberia). The Dene languages do not appear to have been affected as much as the Yeniseian languages. It is postulated that the Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-AET diverged 5kya which is younger than so called "Proto-Altaic". Proto-Uralic is considered by many to be older also. <br /><br />E. Vajda noted that both the reconstructions of Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-Na-Dené are estimated [contradictory] to be on the order of 5,000 years old, and as a result it may still be possible (if difficult) to find enough lexical similarities to reconstruct Proto-Dené–Yeniseian at a proposed 13,000- to 15,000-year time depth (Wikipedia ~ Dene-Yeniseian). One can see that is a bit contradictory. If both Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-AET go back to 5kya then how could Proto-Dene-Yeniseian be 13kya to 15kya. This is the same thing I pointed out earlier about the dates for Proto-Yeniseian...Proto-Yeniseian would have had to be spoken for 3 thousand years before dialectically breaking up. Proto-Yeniseian 5kya and the date proposed for dialectical divergence 2kya.<br /><br />By the way there may be smattering of Uralic forms in Na-Dene. Not sure if the author is correct though.<br /><br />Also cf. http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\piet&first=1&off=&text_proto=&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&text_meaning=knee&method_meaning=substring&ic_meaning=on&text_hitt=&method_hitt=substring&ic_hitt=on&text_tokh=&method_tokh=substring&ic_tokh=on&text_ind=&method_ind=substring&ic_ind=on&text_avest=&method_avest=substring&ic_avest=on&text_iran=&method_iran=substring&ic_iran=on&text_arm=&method_arm=substring&ic_arm=on&text_greek=&method_greek=substring&ic_greek=on&text_slav=&method_slav=substring&ic_slav=on&text_balt=&method_balt=substring&ic_balt=on&text_germ=&method_germ=substring&ic_germ=on&text_lat=&method_lat=substring&ic_lat=on&text_ital=&method_ital=substring&ic_ital=on&text_celt=&method_celt=substring&ic_celt=on&text_alb=&method_alb=substring&ic_alb=on&text_rusmean=&method_rusmean=substring&ic_rusmean=on&text_refer=&method_refer=substring&ic_refer=on&text_comment=&method_comment=substring&ic_comment=on&text_any=&method_any=substring&sort=proto&ic_any=on<br /><br />and http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie-ling/ie-sem/BP/BP_KN.htmlAdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34875032739430641262014-04-03T17:48:41.557+03:002014-04-03T17:48:41.557+03:00Getting back on the main topic of Dene-Yeniseian l...Getting back on the main topic of Dene-Yeniseian languages in Eurasia, AdygheChabadi's remarks motivated me to go back and take another look at Uralic, and it appears that some languages in this family may have Dene-Yeniseian borrow words as well. For instance, some Uralic languages such as Hungarian, Komi, and North Mansi have words for 'lake' that appear to be derived from typical Dene <i>to</i>/<i>ta</i>/<i>tu</i> words for 'water' or bodies of water, and not Finnish or Baltic prototypes. Proto-Iroqouian also seems to have borrowed from Dene for the word for 'lake', <i>*otar</i>/<i>*nytar</i>.<br /><br />Words for 'lake':<br /><br /><i>tó</i> Hungarian (word for water is <i>víz</i> <br /><i>ты</i> Komi-Zyrian(word for water is <i>va</i><br /><i>tūr</i> North Mansi(word for water is <i>wit</i><br /><br />The Finnish word for 'lake' is <i>järvi</i> and the word for water is <i>vesi</i><br /><br />Dene-Yeniseian languages:<br /><br /><i>deˀ</i> Ket ('water' = <i>ul</i>)<br /><i>tooh</i> Navajo ('water' = <i>tó</i>)<br /><i>to</i> Hupa ('water' = <i>tʰaʔ=naːn</i><br /><br /><i>*otar</i>, <i>*nytar</i> Proto-Iroquoian<br /><br /><i>tar</i> Persian word for 'wet'<br /><i>-tar</i> Hittite, component of <i>wa-a-tar</i><br /><br />(Note: The <i>tar</i>/<i>tur</i> forms may have been produced through rhotacism.)<br /><br />This suggests that Dene languages other than Yeniseian languages may have also been present in Eurasia, and quite far west.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22608641405247702952014-04-03T14:39:21.408+03:002014-04-03T14:39:21.408+03:00Plus, if you are again trying to appeal to authori...<i>Plus, if you are again trying to appeal to authority in a conversation about facts, I won't consider your argument valid.</i><br /><br />This is a conversation about opinions - in particular whether Out of America is more like Darwinism or Creationism. The "appeal to authority" is to establish if there is widespread scientific support to Out of America. There isn't, so in my opinion, that makes it more like Creationism (no scientific support) than Darwinism (widespread scientific support). <br /><br />You may have your own criteria and use it arrive at a different opinion, but please don't try to tell me that Out of America is taken seriously by the widespread scientific community. That, my creationist friend, is bullshit.<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64919727645841413112014-04-03T08:58:40.057+03:002014-04-03T08:58:40.057+03:00@AdygheChabadi
"Cherokee: kanigeni "kn...@AdygheChabadi <br /><br />"Cherokee: kanigeni "knee" almost appears to be a reduplicative form. You would have to do more than compare forms. You need to demonstrate actual phonological correspondence. Can you demonstrate phonological correspondence between the Cherokee form and the Indo-European form for "knee"?"<br /><br />It is not a reduplicative form. I followed the convention of using the 3rd person singular for the word ("his knee' - Iroqouian uses pronominal affixes.) The root word is <i>-nigeni</i> vs. PIE <i>*g(e)neu</i>.<br /><br />"In all honesty, Indo-European seems closer to Uralic than anything Amerind. There are legitimate connections with Uralic and Indo-European. They may just be areal, but they no less exist. I would say any genuine similarity between Amerind languages and Indo-European maybe contact induced adoptions due to the colonization of the Americas by Europeans. By most accounts, Indo-European is just not old enough to have existed 10 - 15 kya and it did not exist in Beringia. Proto-Indo-European is at the most 8kya by the majority opinion."<br /><br />I've presented ample material that demonstrates the likely relationship between the two families, including not only probable cognates but also similarities in grammar. You evidently have not seen my material on numbers: for instance, the Mohawk and Nottaway words for 'two' are <i>tekeni</i> and <i>dekeni</i> respectively. The 'd-/t-' affix indicates dual case, and the <i>-ek-</i> component is the same as Persian word for 'one' and is similar to the word for 'one' in many other Indo-Iranian languages. However, the words for 'one' in Mohawk and Nottaway respectively are not like '<i>ek</i> but <i>enskat</i> and <i>unte</i>. Do these words remind you of the words for 'one' in another language family? And what is the word particle <i>-ek-</i> doing in these two words for 'two' a continent away? Is it a coincidence that the word for 'two' in Singhalese, an Eastern Indo-Iranian language, is <i>deka</i>? What is the relationship between <i>enskat</i> an the Lithuanian word for 'to count', <i>skaityti</i>?<br /><br />The Cherokee words for 'one' and two' are <i>sawu</i> and <i>tali</i>, respectively. The Tocharian equivalents are <i>sa</i> (or <i>sas</i>) and <i>wu</i> respectively. Moreover, the Cherokee pronunciation of the 't-' in <i>tali</i> trends towards 'd-', and the '-li' is another affix, so the core word is more like the archetypal IE <i>da</i>.<br /><br />You are right - the estimated divergence time of 8-10 Kyrs BP is a problem. Iroquoian has been traditionally assigned to the Amerind language family, implying that their ancestors arrived with the first wave of post-glacial settlement about 12-15 Kyr BP. Either the Iroquoian languages arrived with a later wave of migration, or one branch migrated back to Siberia. as did Yeniseian (and possibly other Dene languages as well). Obviously, IE could not have given rise to Iroquoian, so it must be that the former is somehow derived from the latter. Probably the IE languages originated in Siberia and were essentially Iroquoian initially but subsequently transformed by the combination of acquiring labial consonants as well as contacts with other languages groups, such as Uralic in the north and Dene-Yeniseian-Caucasian-Vasconic in the south and east. <br /><br />Frankly, I am not impressed by the evidence presented by advocates of the Indo-Uralic theory - and neither is most of the linguistics community. Let's take a look at a couple of words, and you can draw your own conclusions:<br /><br />“BONE”<br />ὀστοῦν <b>ostoun</b> (Ancient Greek)<br /><b>óhstien</b> (Mohawk)<br /><b>ostokhān</b> (Persian)<br /><b>kost</b> (Czech)<br /><b>luu</b> (Finnish)<br /><br />“EYE”<br />ὀφθαλμός <b>ophthalmos</b> (Ancient Greek)<br /><b>okà:ra</b> (Mohawk)<br /><b>oculus</b> Latin <br /><b>akis</b> (Lithuanian)<br /><b>oko</b> (Czech)<br /><b>silma</b> (Finnish)Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.com