Showing posts with label Uralic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Uralic. Show all posts

13 September 2011

The Ancient World of the Finnish People

Published by Kenneth S. Doig

In the year of 98 AD, the famous Roman historian Tacitus wrote the most detailed early description of Fenni, a people of the north. This was probably the first reference to the Finns in recorded history. According to Tacitus, the poor and savage Fenni lived somewhere in the north-eastern Baltic region.

This northern region Tacitus mentioned, was at that time already inhabited by peoples of various origin. Although Tacitus my have been referring to the Sami people, it is quite possible that even at this early date the ancestral Finns were already entering this area. The Finns are believed to be a northern branch of the ancient Finno-Ugric tribes that left central Asia during the period of great migrations.

19 July 2011

Historical linguistics and the origin of the Finns: The debate between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘revolutionaries’

Published by Kenneth S. Doig

written by Dr. Angela Marcantonio

1. The traditional Uralic theory and modern research
In the last couple of decades there have been in Finland as well as abroad a number of publications, in several fields of science, such as linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, genetics, which, one way or the other, all question what one can call ‘the standard, traditional Uralic (U) theory’ about the origin of the Finns and their language. Compare for example the following works in fields outside linguistics: Dolukhanov (2000a & b); Julku and Äärelä (eds,1997), Julku (2000); Niskanen ( 2000) and Nuñez (1987); see also the article ‘Palaeontology: science or fiction?’ in this volume for further references.

29 June 2011

The Indo-European languages legend

Published by Kenneth S. Doig

Preface by K.S. Doig

Some of this theories in this article I don't agree with. I am sure that many of our modern IE languages are hybrids and that PIE (Proto-Indo-European) was mostly like a hybrid, with at least Uralic as one of  its contributors. Uralic mythology is virtually identical to IE mythology and some other linguistic similarities seem to show that. But when people like Noam Chomksy and others try to contend that either all the world's languages come from the same source, or that two super-families like Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic (Semitic, Hamitic, Coptic, etc), traditionally considered unrelated, some of their theories become too tenuous for me. Besides, even if they were related at some point, like 30,000 years ago, it is moot. How similar would you be to a person you shared a common ancestor from 30,000 years ago. My point is, that beyond the major traditional language super-families, Indo-European, Ural-Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan, etc., I believe that they are either unrelated or so incredibly distantly related that there are "unrelated".

Europeans R haplotypes used to sepak Dene-Caucasian Vasconic and other non identified languages,when middle eastern farmers brought agriculture to Europe they brought their nostratic languages.

Good folks who follow this blog