Thread 18057711

What do you think of this hypothesis? Tell me your arguments, for me it is has legitimacy

There is plenty of evidence, and it is accepted by many serious linguists; there is no serious or consistent reason to deny it. This relationship is not possible with late Indo-Iranian borrowings, as they say, with implosive stops and, together with shared and inherited morphology, is truly gone.

>>18057711 (OP)
After having no answers about how genetics is a problem for your hypothesis (yes, it's not a theory, but a mere hypothesis, since it didn't pass the filter)
and using countless fallacies, appeals to authority, and syllogisms, you've now created your own thread and decided to stop going off-topic? No problem, everyone can see how you were left without answers to the genetics question, your lack of basic knowledge, and how your only response was to argue that
> in fact... they are... different areas! Don't talk about genetics

Genetics is a thorn in the side of your favorite theory, but allow me to educate you again, okay? Ironically, in other posts of yours, you seem quite accurate in using "genetics" and linguistics (an area in which you yourself are a layman) as complementary... ironic, isn't it? Your convenience doesn't fool anyone, lady.

>>18057715
What are you talking about? There was no refutation here, it didn't happen, understand how linguistics works

>>18057718
>refutation
Your favorite theory, be it Nostratic or any other garbage, is not accepted by "academia." Indo-Uralic has no academic appeal or even the rigor for it, Citing that same booklet by your authors that you romantically admire won't change that. In the other thread you ruined, you can't answer me... why? None of the questions about the problems involved in genetics were answered... just an empty and ignorant mention of "ANE," which, if I remember correctly. In other threads, you insisted on having entered the Middle East to support Nostratic. But if you want another answer, here we go...
In my free time, I read about this garbage and did some takes. See.
1/??

>>18057715
Someone else made the thread. I was actually planning to make my own thread later after collecting some pictures of Indo-Uralic comparisons. I'll get around to it later I suppose. It's better to have actually data to talk about instead of just constant arguing about nothing.

>>18057735
>>18057711 (OP)
2/2
>>18057744
whether it's you or not (actually, it is you) the answers will have the same effect, sameflag
*mental illness and Indo-Uralic, a previous*

This theory claims that Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic descended from a common ancestral language, perhaps spoken in the late Mesolithic or early Neolithic. They point to similarities in short word lists as evidence. Furthermore, some typological features, such as case marking, non-tonal phonology, and the use of suffixal morphology, are cited as support. But, frankly, it seems a bit far-fetched. The problem is that we have few proposed lexical correspondences, and most lack sound or structural consistency. Furthermore, the morphology, phonology, and syntax of the two language families are quite different. Even though the geographic argument supposedly seems plausible, (it isn't) the linguistic evidence is weak and unconvincing. It's like trying to piece together pieces that don't fit.
Today, Kortlandt and his students are the main authors still publishing on Indo-Uralic. But some say their work is quite problematic, especially that of Kloekhorst, who seems to have a poor understanding of the history of Uralic.

>>18057753
2/?
2

Many of the supposed "Indo-Uralic cognates" can be explained another way: as linguistic borrowings. Sorry OP, its true. Since the 20th century, researchers have noted that Uralic borrowed several words from Indo-European, especially from Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages, as i said in the thread you ruined, this includes words related to war, social hierarchy, religion, and numbers. These borrowings appeared in several branches of Uralic. The Indo-Uralic shitypothesis initially attracted attention by amateurs like you, but it soon revealed methodological problems. Proposals generally had few common words, (the number of shared items rarely exceeded twenty) and even those relied on very broad comparisons or somewhat speculative reconstructions. When we Compared to the Indo-European and Uralic families, which have many solid and consistent correspondences, the Indo-Uralic list seemed quite weak and inconsistent. Sorry

These shared words don't prove that the languages have a common origin, as some of you desperately, and even religiously, try to argue (will you insult me and say I'm not intelligent?), but rather that there was contact between Indo-European and Uralic speakers. They interacted for centuries on the border between forests and steppes, exchanging words and things. These loanwords were so well absorbed by Uralic that they seemed to be part of the language itself, misleading some linguists. This contact is very similar to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, where IE integeriam with Uralic.

Why do the Turkjeets like to pretend that they're brothers of Uralids?

>>18057765
OP is not even Turkish, some say he is Brazilian, he made those pathetic tables of Aryan cognates
>>18057711 (OP)
Holy shit, man, you're still with this? Like, literally, 3 people showed you several sources and you just ignored everything. It's hard to see that we're dealing with unrelated populations. Stop provoking and subverting everything.

>>18057765
Turkjeet often cherrypick victims of assimilation and pretend it's a turanid/mixed phenotype.

>>18057780
Why, or are they proud of their chinkjeet phenotype? Nogais are true Turanids, 1/2 Western and Eastern Eurasian.

>>18057780
>>18057783
>>18057765
Off topic

>>18057783
Turanids at best look latinx

>>18057762
It's obvious you haven't read much about the topic. No, it can't all be explained as loans. The chronology of sound changes doesn't allow that interpretation and your understanding that there is little morphology in common is just ignorant. Why do you even bother if you aren't interested in linguistics?

Go ahead and talk about the genetics some more if you want. It's okay if you want to tear the theory to shreds. I'll read what you have to say. I'll get around to posting my own stuff later.

What amazes me is all I wanted to do earlier was share a book I liked as an offhand remark and nobody could leave well enough alone.

Uralic shares linguistic features found in other language families. An example would be the Proto-Uralic interrogative particle *ka, which looks similar to Proto-Mongolic *ken, Proto-Turkic *kem, and also Proto-Indo-European *kwi.

>>18057790
>actually, me, the most intelligent here, are the only one able to talk about linguistics
Anything else, young lady? If genetics is your weak point and you have no answer, just appeal to female authority, let's play genetics knowledge.
3/? The Lists have been compiled comparing the Indo-European and Uralic protolanguages, as well as *attempts* to find grammatical parallels. These lists generally contain few words or features, about twenty at most ;) and many of the correspondences are seen as loanwords from Indo-European into Uralic, rather than true cognates. the evidence isn't strong enough to prove a genetic relationship between the two language families:

Some examples cited as "proof" of Indo-Uralic are questionable. For example, the comparison between "i" in Uralic (*minä) and the Indo-European form (*h1méne or *h1me) seems le evidence at first glance, but it's not so simple. Uraloid *minä is nominative, while Indo-European *h1me is accusative and has important differences, such as the lack of a final nasal and a different vowel. The only commonality is the initial "m."
IE nominative is *h1éǵ-, which is unrelated to the Uralic form. Even the genitive form *h1méne is debated, with other options being more widely accepted. Essentially, the similarities are superficial and do not prove a real connection, again.

The number and case don't match. The nominative plural in Indo-European would be *yū́, which doesn't align with the proposed comparison. Basically, the forms don't fit together properly.

>>18057805
4/? Uralic forms most closely resemble Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages. Its over.
These languages also have similar forms *min and *ti(n)—for "I" and "you." Basically, the similarity to these languages is greater than to Indo-European.

PU *sᴕ̈ ‘he, she, it’ – PIE *so ‘he, that’

PU *to/*tä ‘that’ – PIE *to- ‘that, this’

The forms are demonstrative pronouns, but they function differently in the two language families. In Proto-Uralic, they are distinct, while in Proto-Indo-European, they are part of the same paradigm, with "so" marking the nominative and "to-" serving as the basis for the other cases. Essentially, they function differently, which complicates direct comparison
The word for "water" is one of the most frequently cited examples supporting the Indo-Uralic hypothesis has a good semantic correspondence, and although the phonology isn't perfect Uralic probably lacked the "d" sound, so a change from *wed- to *wet- is plausible. The Uralic form lacks the Indo-European -r/-n suffix, but that's not a problem, since the word likely comes from the root *wed-. Basically, it's a good-sounding example, but let's take it slow. I will stop with the linguistic issue, because our ultra-knowledgeable linguists and holders of the truth here in/his/ have very fragile egos, so I will move on to another topic.
Let's face it, our lady friend above takes it upon herself to dictate who knows about genetics or not, but that didn't even take me 20 minutes, someone is pretending to be an expert here

>>18057810
>>18057805
This nonsense is useless, genetics has already made it very clear how this is sendable

>>18057790
>Go ahead and talk about the genetics some more if you want.
My lady? I presented some of the most cited examples as supporting UI shtypothesis
See above
And if linguistics weren't enough, let genetics put the final nail in this hypothesis' coffin. recent studies found that the Ural peoples originated from Yakutia in Siberia, not the Ural Mountains as previously thought. Yakutia is closer to Alaska than Finland. 180 ancient genomes and over 1,000 previously published samples spanning 11,000 years were analyzed. D: see pic

Ethe origin of the Ural peoples is more closely linked to fucking east Siberia than to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Its over, really. These proto-Uralic people had their own genetic profile, which we now call Yakutia_LNBA, You don't understand how this is problematic for your shtypothesis...? This kind of buries the Indo-Uralic hypothesis

there's no strong linguistic evidence to support this idea. If the languages originated from a common ancestor, there should be some sign of this in the populations that spread them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

>>18057711 (OP)
Genetic data shows that the languages likely originated in different regions, brought by distinct peoples with no known kinship. This greatly complicates the idea of a genealogical link between them It's like trying to connect dots that don't connection If the theory doesn't match the facts, maybe it's time to change direction, right? Better to find something else to focus on
>>18057830
Is ST related to uralics?

>>18057830
What is the argumentation that the genetic signal from Yakutia is the ultimate origin of Uralic speech and that Uralic was spread from there?

OP obliterated
>There have been numerous attempts to find relatives of Proto-Indo-European, not the least of which is the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic are alleged to descend from a common ancestor. However, attempts to prove this hypothesis have run into numerous difficulties. One difficulty concerns the inability to reconstruct the ancestral morphological system in detail, and another concerns the rather small shared vocabulary. This latter problem is further complicated by the fact that many scholars think in terms of borrowing rather than inheritance. Moreover, the lack of agreement in vocabulary affects the ability to establish viable sound correspondences and rules of combinability.

>>18057711 (OP)
Its Eurasiatic

>>18057866
Eurasiatic is widely [rejected]

>>18057830
You realize your own theory requires a long distance migration to explain the present distribution of Uralic right? That being the case, no distance presents any inherent difficulty if the end result has Uralic speakers in Europe. In which case Proto-Indo-Uralic could have existed at the geographic midpoint between the two extremes.

>>18057711 (OP)
I just destroyed this guy in the other thread, haha. He's proven to be a lunatic who kind of denies the existence of an IE gene pool. He looks like one of those Indians.
> IE is a language! Not a race, bro.
Not even Lazaridis was that ignorant. I killed this guy.
Ignore him kek

>>18057899
>who kind of denies the existence of an IE gene pool.
You are ESL with no reading comprehension. That never happened you retard. Go to a non-English forum if all you're going to do is carry around your misunderstandings like a badge of honor.

>>18057872
>your own theory
This is not an answer, it is not my "theory", it is just challenges to the evidence we have, I am being completely impartial here, you are the only one who cites ANE or insists on PU, but the problems were presented and there was no solution, theory discarded

If the two language families had originated from a common ancestor, we would expect partial overlap in the populations that spread them. The genetic data suggest that they originated in separate regions, carried by distinct populations with no known shared ancestry, which makes the proposed genealogical link much more difficult to sustain, or in short, non-euphemistic terms, impossible
>>18057899
I already noticed this dialectic of Our Lady in the other thread. But she uses genetics in a convenient way, see those threads about Aryan cognate to see what I'm talking about.

>>18057907
anon I'm writing with my cell phone but whether this is wrong or not you were refuted by an "illiterate", which is more humiliating everyone can go to the other thread where you received giga BTFO'd by me cry more

>>18057861
Google pic
Sources?

>>18057912
Le indo-uralic destroyed
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335676918_Bomhard_-_The_Origins_of_Proto-Indo-European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_Volume_47_Number_1_2_SpringSummer_2019_pre-print

>>18057867
Not really, it's a ANE language

>>18057915
>Bomhard
No

>>18057916
Your desperate attempt to bring "PIU" or any other bullshit back in time is rejected, Eurasiatic is a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a provisional and vague explanation for something, and a theory is an explanation already founded on well-founded and widely tested consolidated evidence that explains a set of facts, which "ANE's PIU" or some BS failed in this first step. It is widely rejected, except for your favorite authors
__Georg, Stefan "Connections between Uralic and Other Language Families

>Eurasiatic did not win any acceptance among specialists.

>>18057917
>muh my link for bill is le actually true ok?
Cope, maggot

>>18057926
Reading Campbell, i found something very interesting, who I believe you used in one of those Aryan cognate threads (which, with your modus operandi, we should be highly skeptical about how much of it was legitimate and not just subjective delusions supported by unconventional linguistic hypotheses), actually dismisses Nostratic, since it is a consensus among serious linguists that it has no substantive support.

>By this rule of thumb, the Nostratic forms that have been questioned as possible borrowings would all be set aside.

>Nostratic and Proto-World have been featured in newspapers, magazines, and television documentaries, and yet these same proposals have been rejected by most mainstream historical linguistics.

>It must be remembered (as mentioned above and shown in Chapter 3) that even basic vocabulary can sometimes be borrowed. Finnish borrowed from its Baltic and Gennanic neighbors various tenns for basic kinship and body parts

two birds with one stone, i must say

>>18057949
What exactly is your point? I haven't posted as a proponent of Nostratic. If someone brings up Nostractic comparanda (they did) I might respond to that with more Nostractic comparanda in order to put that in better context.

>>18057810
One thing this post fails to appreciate is the PIE demonstrative *só ~ *tó- in comparison to the PU demonstrative *t͡so ~ *to point to a PIU demonstrative *t͡so ~ *to where PU has preserved the dental affricate and PIE lost it (*t͡so > *só). In other words, the sound change shows the relationship between PIE and Uralic has to go back to a Pre-PIE stage since PIE had lost word-initial affricates.

This is one of the words that makes the assertion that Uralic was merely borrowing from PIE problematic because it is a core word of basic vocabulary and the sound changes point to language contact that is older than reconstructible PIE.

One thing I like about Uralic comparisons is that the sound correspondences actually seem to provide some insight into the origins of labiovelars (and perhaps even *h3) since within PIE alone it's difficult to see how the consonants developed their labial articulation or what the original patterning was.

Here you can see a PIE labiovelar *kʷ would correspond to PIU prevocalic *kuV so basically the *k took the labial element from the former *u

>>18058001
PIE shows signs of having implosive consonants like *ɗ at an early stage. Now, *ɗ can actually evolve into a liquid like *l or a nasal *n. These are normal types of sound changes for implosive stops.

Since Uralic words show a relationship with PIE that must go back to when IE speakers still had implosives, cognates of this type imply language contact that is older than what Indo-Iranian loans would allow.

>>18058046
The words in this picture show a regular sound correspondence:
word medial PIE *-ɗ- ~ PU *-l-
word initial PIE *ɗ- ~ PU *n-/*ń-

>>18057830
There is no need for this show, we already know that Indo-Uralic is a total failure
>>18057835
No. We have Uralic samples and they have no IE ancestry, which is more good evidence against this garbage
>>18057949
Who was making those threads about Aryan cognates in Semitic and Alaskan languages? Is it the OP? I think it was something like a magical proto-language that would unite all of this, right?

>>18057711 (OP)
No one takes IU seriously these days. Speakers of Uralic and Indo-European languages encountered and influenced each other in the border regions between the steppe and the taiga, leaving traces in vocabulary and culture, but not in a shared linguistic ancestry. This is absurd, as are attempts at Indo-Semitic.

Linguists have concluded that rather than being sister languages, the two families represent distinct lineages with separate origins and trajectories. The demise of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is not a failure of method, but a triumph of better evidence.

>>18058065
When they came into contact, they were already separate and fully formed language families. Their similarities, if not coincidental, result from interaction, not inheritance.
>>18058061
even a cognate h2er in fucking Egypt was suggested by them and their gang of lunatics

>>18057711 (OP)
This seems unlikely, ss, not fanfic, given the linguistic data we have on Uralic, along with the genetic evidence. Indo-European isn't necessarily derived from EHG, as some here have claimed; there was a complex admixture cline of several intermixed groups that formed the CLV cline Didn't we already have a thread where I explained this to you? You simply spammed me with a book, I remember well But I've already said it and I won't repeat it: different populations with different origins. Why does the OP insist on this?

Kids, remember, semantics don't make you smart and even basic vocabulary can sometimes be borrowed.
Nice try

>>18058055
Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European also share nominal morphology. This is a difficult thing to explain as late borrowing. When it comes to basic morphology such an excuse is ad hoc and even conspiratorial. Shared features of this style require either extended language contact or common origins.

It was mentioned earlier that PIE lost dental affricates in its prehistory which can be seen in the variation of the demonstrative pronoun *só ~ *tó- (< *t͡só ~ *tó-). Accordingly, the correspondence of the plural markers PIE *-s ~ PU *-t points to earlier *-t͡s.

PIE and PU have both the plural and dual case markers in correspondence. PU *k regularly corresponds to PIE *h1. This relationship suggests PU preserves an archaism since PIE *h1 is frequently believed to represent a sound like /h/, and *h1 is near universally lost in IE languages. The necessary sound changes point to the lenition of a velar stop and subsequent debuccalization in the prehistory of PIE: /k/ > /x/ > /h/ similar to /x/ > /h/ in Germanic. In order for Uralic to "borrow" the dual case marker (if such a thing even makes sense), it would have needed to be in contact with Pre-PIE.

As I have mentioned before, Pre-PIE at least having contact with Proto-Uralic is problematic for Southern Arc-style hypotheses even if you do not think Proto-Indo-Uralic was a real language. This is my point. I do not aim to prove that Proto-Indo-Uralic existed, only that the relationship between the two language families is archaic and points to a north eastern origin of Pre-PIE. That is, PIE is continuous with a culture hailing from the north and east.

>>18057711 (OP)
Pure gay theory garbage
Proto-Uralic was spread both east and west by traders from Seima Turbino, and they may also have been bilingual in Indo-Iranian. Check out Parpola's latest article on this

>>18058109
>Proto-Indo-Uralic was a real language.
It is not a real language and nobody mentioned Arco Sul here except you who uses it as a strawman, since looking at your discussion with the boys in that previous thread, you showed an abysmal lack of knowledge about the subjects of PIE origin. "Pre-Proto-Uralic" (you can play with "pre" as much as you like, but it's redundant) was probably spoken well east of any Indo-European ancestor, possibly in Eastern Siberia, and later in Southern Siberia, according to an article by Yakutia_LNBA. As for "Pre-Proto-Indo-European" (you didn't even read Lazaridis, though he's wrong to say anything further south than the Volga; the PIE core was on the Don River), was situated in the North Caucasus, with roots possibly linked to "EHG" or CHG groups, and deeper roots perhaps coming from WHG or UP_Caucasus sources. Tracing a common root for all these supposed
similarities ignores multiple events of prolonged contact between the IE and U branches, which initially shared no similarities.

>The morphosyntactic typology of Uralic is distinctive in western Eurasia. A number of typological properties are eastern-looking overall, fitting comfortably into northeast Asia, Siberia, or the North Pacific Rim

>We have argued that Proto-Uralic originated east of the Urals and out of contact with Proto-Indo-European. Its traceable prehistory begins with a mostly westward spread bringing daughter speech communities to the middle Volga. That spread took place rapidly and for the most part without substratal effects. It occurred in the time frame of the 4.2 ka event, the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon, and the Indo-Iranian contact episode, and taken together these three events explain the Uralic spread and situate it in space and time

I already posted the link to the study that you refuse to read.

>>18058120
>>18058109
If you're still struggling to understand due to confirmation bias, here's a summary: 1)there's a strong link between the kra001 ancestry, haplogroup N, and the distribution of Uralic languages.
2)Based on additional linguistic features and elements shared with other Siberian languages, the relationship with Indo-European is rejected by most modern linguists. (An article that takes less than 20 minutes to read won't hurt anyone.)
3) There was a contact zone between Indo-European and different Uralic branches, no older than 2000 BC, primarily between Indo-Iranian and several Uralic languages. This is evident in layers of linguistic borrowings and other influences, with multiple contact events for each branch. This is less evident in Samoyed, which is more distantly related, and which is still Uralic. Therefore, a "PIU" is no more necessary than a Nostratic, or evidence of a flat earth.
I'm tired and I won't explain this ad nauseam

>>18058120
Dude He denies that there was a PIE ethnolinguistic group in the steppes in 3000 BC. He ignores the faggot who subverts everything Lazaridis is more honest and he doesn't even know that the Southern Arc has already been refuted.

>>18058126
>Dude He denies that there was a PIE ethnolinguistic group in the steppes in 3000 BC.
I've never once said this. Why do you feel the need to lie so badly? Is a discussion about prehistoric languages an emotional experience for you?

>>18057711 (OP)
How can there be an Indo-Uralic language if the Uralic language family has nine subfamilies with no consensus on how they are related?? Nonsense from retarded linguists, my problem with this race is that they are egocentric and think that all academia is amateur compared to them, but in fact it is like this
>genetics>archaeology>anthropology>linguistics

If I'm correct, all Uralic languages have numerous pre-modern borrowings from Indo-European languages, primarily from early Indo-Iranian; this is well known. For example, Finnish "porsas" ('piglet'). Mikhail Zhivlov and George Starostin found 7 matches, with a 1.9% probability of at least 7 random matches. Randomization usually resulted in an average of 2 or 3 matches. With less simplification, they found 0.5% with an average of 2 matches, which makes the Indo-Uralic hypothesis quite unlikely.

>>18058120
>similarities ignores multiple events of prolonged contact between the IE and U branches, which initially shared no similarities.
Let me just make sure you understand what you're saying. Throughout the thread you've been shown comparisons between PIE and PU yet somehow Uralic branches "initially shared no similarities" despite similarities between PU and PIE existing. PU is the starting point for Uralic therefore Uralic has shown similarities to PIE since its inception.

Are you simply in denial of what I've shown so far?

>>18058144
Their strongest argument is that it would be extremely unusual for a language to borrow its basic verb conjugation system from another... so... well
> it was actually a family of languages that, contrary to all external evidence we have, must have been spoken in a homeland unknown to some unknown people unknown and their PIU dialect diversified so much that the similarities are almost nonexistent.
I bet this homeland was in Narnia or Skyirm, but the latter makes more sense because my favorite linguistics expert said it's all a matter of playing with semantics backed by morphological arguments to support the Indo-Uralic thesis... and how borrowing basic grammar is rare, even considering we're talking about peoples much more advanced compared to those who lived in the Stone Age without metal until the BA, But who cares? Context is useless when you can larp everyone with your language degree. It was spoken by local hunter-gatherers. but Grünthal concluded that PU must have remained out of contact with Proto-Indo-European and shared no genealogical ancestry with Indo-European, but the misfortune of the few and the joy of the many if based on cognacy or loans the argument from lexical resemblances is flawed

>>18058149
Are you simply in denial of what we have shown so far? Yes, you're

>>18057915
>>18057861

It is quite unlikely the old Indo-Uralic hypothesis is generally rejected and even more unlikely than a deep relationship between the Transeurasian languages. It is only supported by adherents of the Eurasiatic/Nostratic hypotheses, which are considered cope
>>18057987
This does not count as evidence, because today we know that even basic words can be borrowed. For example, the Finnish verb "tehdä" ('to do'), root "teke-," is probably a loanword from the Indo-European root "*dhek
>PU had (and the modern Uralic languages mostly still have) a number of typological traits that are typical of the greater North Pacific Rim area and not of western Eurasia. These traits are shared with many Siberian languages but are (otherwise) rare in Europe. More precisely, the patterns, as types, are found throughout Siberia and nearby; in Uralic, the morphemes marking them are generally native to Uralic. Uralic languages also have a number of traits that define what I call the Inner Asian type. These traits are not all typical of the North Pacific Rim or Siberian linguistic populations but rather are hallmarks of a smaller set of families: prototypically, Tungusic, Turkic, Mongolic, and Uralic or at least eastern Uralic; to a lesser extent, Korean, Japonic, and Eskimo-Aleut.

>>18057711 (OP)
No Because they did not came from the same area aryans and Uralic are clearly not directly related Proto-Indo-European is generally associated with the Sredny Stog culture in the Pontic-Caspian
The roots of pre-proto-Uralic is linked to Neo-Siberian component which diverged from East/Southeast Asians around 15-25kya, and spreaded with Eastern Siberian hunter-gatherers westwards, not Aryans together with the bad haplogroup N, a common clade among Uralic-speaking peoples and non_whites
>>18057790
Saar

>3) There was a contact zone between Indo-European and different Uralic branches, no older than 2000 BC, primarily between Indo-Iranian and several Uralic languages. This is evident in layers of linguistic borrowings and other influences, with multiple contact events for each branch.
Please pay attention to the evidence presented so far. The comparisons require sound changes that go back to the time before PIE, therefore later contact events with Indo-European branches is not relevant. Indo-Iranian can be safely forgotten for the rest of the thread.

>>18058170
The guy is trolling, I've seen responses from all areas here but he took it personally

Please pay attention to the evidence presented so far....
There is a strong link between kra001 ancestry, haplogroup N, and the Uralic languages. A relationship with Indo-European is rejected by most linguists. There was contact between the two groups, with evident linguistic borrowings, but there is no need for a Proto-Indo-Uralic language.

>>18058190
for: >>18058124

>>18057711 (OP)
Makes sense. Genetics has proven that whites are mongoloid mutts carrying around 50% mongoloid ancestry, and are descendant of the mongoloid hg K2 through R. Thus sharing a common bloodline with mongoloid such as Chinese, Tatars, Phillipinos, Andameses, Finns, Viets, Koreans, Latinos, and so on.

>>18057711 (OP)
IE is related to Afroasiatic
Uralic-Yukaghir is related to Altaic

>>18057830
It's pretty futile attempt to predict language from genes but you do understand that area you point out was ANE heartland ? Hecking oldest "ANE" aka Yana sample is from there. Malta boy (with HQ R) is just south of there. So if we derive pre-pre-PIE from ANE and fricken Siberia then deriving pre-pre-U from approx same area actually makes Indo-Uralic theory STRONGER.

>>18058487
They don't like it when you point out the ANE connection, probably because it's not specific enough and the timeframe required for the last common ancestor to be ANE is either too long or too difficult to pin down precisely.

Nonetheless, they truly are connected by ANE. The reconstruction of a common proto language doesn't necessarily inform us in any useful regard about how far back in time it would have been spoken. Sometimes there are ways but in principle the actual age could exceed our expectations.

That said, the similarities between the language families can hardly be explained as late borrowings or coincidence since the chronology of the necessary sound changes is prohibitive and the shared morphology is more extensive than what has been shown so far which indicates they inherited features from an unknown third source held in common.

ANEs are the "next PIEs" in that they are a prehistoric group of nomads whose descendants traveled far and wide while undoubtedly spreading language. The reconstruction of ANE and Siberian-related language families would represent the next big step in uncovering the prehistory in Eurasia. In some ways, skeptics of ANE connections resemble Indo-European deniers of the past and while their points are important to not ignore, many here do not maintain clear boundaries regarding the scope in which genetics is utilized to provide answers. They fundamentally do not understand where genetics is blind and precisely what genetics can falsify. Genetics is the new hammer and they wish everything was a nail.

>>18058120
>nobody mentioned Arco Sul here
This is a continuation of the conversation from the last thread, and addressing Southern Arc makes sense within context of the original responses of that thread. You might forget that my goal hasn't been to prove Proto-Indo-Uralic but rather show that these connections demonstrate that PIEs are culturally continuous with EHGs who are culturally continuous with West Siberian Hunter Gatherers/ANEs. Proving a brand new proto language is beyond the scope of a thread and requires the work of many scholars, often over many decades, but within a thread it can be shown that similarities between two language families are not coincidental and that the similarities are not all due to late borrowing.

>>18058109
Did you know that PIE and PU pronouns are comparable in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons? For reference it is also sometimes possible to compare pronouns in PIE with other language families but correspondences with all three cases is rare.

>>18058202
>There was contact between the two groups, with evident linguistic borrowings,
Explaining the phenomenon by late linguistic borrowings is not suitable, because Proto-Uralic as a unified language already possesses similarities to PIE before PUs breakup into descendant languages. From the very beginning of PIE and PU they possess similarities to each other. If you believe the two homelands are on 5000 km apart, then you must concede these similarities are the result of a third source (or sources) which mediated common language features to the ancestors of both groups.

>>18058176
>This does not count as evidence,
I have to disagree. It quite clearly does count as evidence which should be added to the other similarities and weighed cumulatively, but it does not make a strong case all by itself.

>>18058914
Did you know that both interrogatives and demonstratives are in correspondence?

For those who would say these similarities are due to mere language contact, please explain:
why is it that the similarities are already present at the level of PU and PIE before the breakup of either language into descendant languages?
what exactly do you have in mind for language contact? PU was becoming so mixed up with PIE linguistic features that it was well on its way to becoming a pidgin to enable a degree of mutual intelligibility?
how does that work if they are supposedly 5000 km apart?

>>18058900
>Southern Arc
no one mentioned that southern arc and Indo-Uralic was refuted here and there

>>18058144
It is undeniable that Uralic languages have Indo-European loan words, but what non-linguists may have difficulty understanding because of their unfamiliarity with the subject is that in language contact scenarios, loanwords can be clearly distinguishable from inherited words because of their unique phonology and morphology. Additionally, the chronological understanding of sound changes and the order in which they must happen ensures that many words must be archaic and inherited from the earliest stages of the respective proto languages.

Acknowledging that loanwords exist does not require us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a fly lands in the soup, we are perfectly capable of taking the fly out and leaving the rest of the soup in the bowl.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/tahtas
For example, Proto-Finnic *tahta-s was borrowed from an Indo-European language, probably Proto-Balto-Slavic. It's obvious that it was borrowed because Uralic does not feature the nominative -s ending but Indo-European does.

>>18058487
>ANE
Eurasiatic has no academic support, and the ANE area being or anything else is useless, you know why... There is a strong link between Kra001 ancestry, haplogroup N, and the Uralic languages. A relationship with Indo-European is rejected by most linguists. There was contact between the two groups, with evident linguistic borrowings, but there is no need for a Proto-Indo-Uralic language.
Uralic populations migrated to the West during the 1500-year period that separates the Baikal Neolithic from the Early Bronze Age~4-5.5kya

>>18058900
>>18058487
>>18058865
>ANE
Do you realize how convenient you use genetics? But unfortunately for you, using ANE was your final breath, because the proto-Uralic samples from Yakutia are not really ANE? see the PCA are so far from each other that thinking about any IU disease no longer makes sense here.
"ANE" and since we don't even know what a PIU would be like (because it never existed) it would be very convenient to throw everything back, you lost again
Yakutia_LNBA=50%EastBaikal_EMN(N-TAT)+50%Yakutia_MN
Yakutia_MN=75%Ancient - Paleo-Siberian+25%West-Baikal_EN(N-L666)
West-Baikal_EN=75%EastBaikal_EMN+25%Ancient - Paleo-Siberian

>>18059068
As we see here, forcing an ANE unity with Proto-Uralic and any steppe population is not only stupid but a lie, there is no similarity between both groups, Yakutia_LNBA has very different ancestry and since I'm dealing with an idiot who has a favorite theory while posing as a "linguist", he will probably want to throw it further back in time, which is very convenient, so... what will be the argument? We know the profile of the PU and there is no possibility of them coming from a common root and even if you say that genetics is not important here, this goes against what several linguists have done over the years, especially in IE studies, they are complementary fields today, and the PIE theory only has the support it has today by uniting these fields and the PU authors did that. but let's say you try to play for Ancient - Paleo-Siberian (AR14k), the problem is that this cannot be the common ancestor supposedly between any steppe population and Uralic, because it is very, very old, it predates the ethogenesis of EHG populations, it is almost as retarded as saying that the PIE language comes directly from the ANE, and the Paleo-Siberians are basically Dzhylinda + Afontova + Gorairk030, Kolyma, Yakutia_MN in a nutshell, only 30% ANE.... which is very low, but it is irrelevant, because the PU are not ANE as you like to say, different genetic profile

>>18057711 (OP)
all I can say is that it makes sense geographically speaking

>>18059086
But let's say you try to play for Ancient - Paleo-Siberian (AR14k), the problem is that this cannot be the supposed common ancestor between any steppe population and Uralic, because it is very, very old, it predates the ethogenesis of EHG populations, it is almost as retarded as saying that the PIE language comes directly from the ANE, and the Paleo-Siberians are basically Dzhylinda + Afontova + Gorairk030, Kolyma, Yakutia_MN in a nutshell, only 30% ANE.... which is quite low, but it is irrelevant, because the PU are not ANE as you like to say, different genetic profile.
The Paleo-Siberian sometime between 27 and 36 thousand years ago, and merged with the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) sometime ONLY 20 and 25 thousand years ago, playing back will be your undoing.

>>18059087
No, it doesn't>>18057830

holy shit indo-uralic obliterated the OP is talking to himself that's why he runs away from genetics so much

>>18058900
>PIEs are culturally continuous with EHGs who are culturally continuous with West Siberian Hunter Gatherers/ANEs.
Chronologically false, i must say

>>18059068
I didn't post the PCA because it's in terrible quality, but as we proved, if they came from a common root (they didn't) there is no archaeological or genetic evidence for that, so we rule out any shared root and forcing ANE here is just ignorant looking at the PU profile
ANE argument... debunked

Recapitulating
Kitoi culture > Yakutia LNBA > Kra001 (Proto-Uralics)
Yakutia LNBA = Kitoi + Baikal_EN
Totally different from any steppe population and were not rich in ANE for the theory to make sense, and the PU cannot be older than LNBA, at most 2340-2064

>>18059097
Although I did not make this thread, my intention from the beginning was to post figures, sound correspondences, and cognates. What you may not have noticed is the naysayers have been refuted repeatedly. Connections between PIE and PU are undeniable.

There isn't much to say in response to the genetics because it doesn't falsify linguistic results. So you say you can't find the genetic connection? Not my problem. The linguistic connections exist and you have been shown in post after post why common rejections of the deep and archaic relationship between the two language families are invalid.

If it's not obvious that it's looking bad for deniers, it's only because the arguments are going over your head. But I'm sure you and others will continue to beat your chest with nothing to show for it because you cannot tell the difference between what genetics says and doesn't say.

>>18059091
Proto-Uralic N-L102 originated from Baikal HGs N-M212via Yakutia_LNBA and Krasnoryarsk_BA
PIE is actually older than PU, which kills the hypothesis

>>18059068
>>18059122
>>18059140
Okay, but now explain why Uralics have more EHG than any other ethnic group if they don't have any relation to PIE.

>>18059091
While both R1b2 R1b-PH155 and R1b1 R1b-M343 ultimately derive from ANE groups such as the Mal’ta boy (MA-1, haplogroup R), actually only R1b1 contributed to the emergence of the Western Steppe Herders; R1b2 took a different path and remained uninvolved.
So yeah, muh ANE sucks, they were irrelevant to PIES

>>18059140
I don't know what's so difficult about this; I really think it's trolling.
Yakutia_LNBA is recent, no older than pre-PII (Fatyanovo), and for the OP's theory and its ANE retinue to make sense, we'd expect at least as much ANE as Paleo-Siberians, right? But no. It's negligible and pure noise.
Ancient Paleo-Siberians had 30% ANE ancestry and 64–70% East Asian ancestry.
Baikal populations (Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age) had 6.4!!! and at most, 19.1% ANE ancestry while the rest of their ancestry was derived from ANEA.
Fofonovo_EN had 12–17% ANE and 83–87% East Asian ancestry, etc., etc. If he uses another pop as evidence, it can't be ANE who spoke a "PIU", Uralic is recent and not Paleo-Siberian mixed with ANE, so the latter cannot be the exact origin of the former
>>18059147
syllogism. Generally speaking, the descendants of ANE are mainly EHG as (70%), Tarim mummies, and the Paleo-Siberians make up 30% Indo-Europeans and 20% ANE is a Paleolithic component
It has nothing to do with East Asian, which is one of the main components of Yakutia_LNBA, The Eneolithic Steppe, or pre-Yamnaya ancestry, is an ancestry profile that is characterized by a mixture of two ancestral components EHG+CHG

>>18059147
The early Uralic people were similar to Siberian and East Asian people, sorry

as a proud uralic speaker i believe in the sino-uralic theory

>>18059140
>PIE is actually older than PU, which kills the hypothesis
Whatever the case is with the dating of PIE and PU respectively, I have already posted reasons why the necessary sound changes require language contact before the existence of PIE. You cannot use this reasoning to say any similarity must be the result of late language contact after the formation of the distinct language families.

>>18058951
Question: how many language families that have similarities to PIE reflect the existence of former implosive stops? There is only one that I know of: Proto-Uralic.

The sound correspondences demonstrate that Pre-Proto-Uralic changed implosive stops to sonorants (*n ~ *l) and voiceless stops. The ancient mediator(s) of the language features held in common between IE and Uralic must have had implosive stops. It is an unusual feature that points to a common inheritance.

I prefer to think of it as a contact zone rather than a true proto-family.

>>18059497
>I prefer to think of it as a contact zone
that's most likely undeniable

>>18059200
>Yakutia_LNBA is recent, no older than pre-PII

You actually think Uralic language, the lineage, popped up like a mushroom with emergence of Yakutia_lnba that also came out of thin air with no predecesors ?

Neither languages or genes do that you know.

What we know is that LATE proto-Uralic STAGE is roughly contemporary with Piir.

>>18059497
Maybe but the geneticists are trying to say the speakers of the respective proto languages were 5000 km apart. I think they're running into absurdities which they refuse to recognize because genetic samples do not inherently reveal what language was spoken by the dead people who left no writing. If they made some mistakes somewhere in their genetic analysis there's basically no sanity checks to ensure they are correctly matching language to genetic signals... other than perhaps linguistics.

>>18059561
True and even more so with linguistic stages before the Late proto stage.. Just because of the collusion between Piir and PU we already know that PU simply can not be in late neolithic Yakutia.. without also placing Piir there. Even if the link between Yakutia_lnba and Uralic is real (it could be!) we would not be talking about PU but some pre-proto stage.

>>18059600
So you're saying Proto-Uralic already has Indo-Iranian loans from the beginning?

Holy shit... I went out, had dinner, walked in the park... played a bit, went to the gym, and anon is still insisting on Indo-Uralic after all the evidence against it? It's a shame how stubborn people can be, to the point of obsession. But I think I should remember that...
We have a strong connection between Kra001 ancestry, haplogroup N, and the Uralic languages. This same group is no older than 2000 BC and has no or insignificant amounts of ANE. Due to Paleo-Siberians, who had no more than 30%, the relationship with Indo-European is rejected by most linguists. Besides some very fragmented groups, there was contact between the two groups, with evident linguistic borrowings. That's basically

>>18059680
It's just one guy talking to himself, the genetic evidence was overwhelming in this thread and in the other there's nothing left but to harp on the same topic, as this guy said>>18058170
His main argument is how borrowing basic grammar is rare or something like that

>>18059687
I think I'm a wizard. Look at her, when reminded that the PU is no older than the pre-PII mediated by Fatyanovo, I already knew that her only way out would be to push it back to a pre-proto-pre-proto-Uralic-pre, so I rushed and pushed back the formation of the components that created the PU. We can go as far back as Paleo-Siberian until it's not redundant, and even then, it wouldn't be any kind of pre-PIU or any disease like that.
>>18059086
See how she doesn't even mention ANE in her posts anymore and is making empty comments about how genetics is irrelevant, but then that's a contradiction, because she uses genetics as convenient. See desuarchive.org if you don't believe me. Genetics works when it agrees with my favorite hypotheses, otherwise:
>genetics is not useful for determining linguistics, bro!!
but this goes against what professionals like Anthony, Adams, Patterson and others postulate that genetics and linguistics are complementary, that's what led us to the modern PIE scenario, ironically many of the linguistic theories are being proven by genetics lol lol

Indo-Uralic remains debuked, sameflaging to increase the people who supposedly believe in the theory, changes nothing

>>18059705
Oh, if it wasn't clear, I mentioned myself in this post, we already have a lot of sameflag here and we don't need any more.

Remembering who you guys are arguing here
Fuck all this "linguistics" KEK KEK

>>18059729
The Nostratic nonsense is largely ignored. >>18057949 I've vaguely touched on this before.
This is the price of masturbating to indie and occult authors; you end up reading a lot of schizophrenic "connection" crap, like IU.

>>18059680
>stubborn people can be, to the point of obsession.
It's true. It is as if you are stubborn. It's a shame you won't read or respond to the excellent points that have been made repeatedly refuting you. And yet you repeat the same things over and over without attempting to explain how exactly a genetic analysis can falsify a linguistic result. Maybe it's time you accept your genetic results are either wrong or they are simply unrelated to the linguistic phenomena put on full display throughout the thread.

>>18059705
>>genetics is not useful for determining linguistics,
What I am trying to communicate is not that genetics is useless but rather that it doesn't falsify facts established by linguistics. So if you say there is no way to connect Yakutia people to PIU then all you've done is shown the Yakutia people are genetically unrelated to PIU. You also haven't demonstrated what Yakutia people spoke. It doesn't even occur to you that people can speak a language without obvious genetic connections. If the linguistics show that a PIU language existed, then it existed. (I'm not saying it necessarily existed). If you want to make a big fuss about how the PIU speakers cannot be traced genetically, that's fine! All that it means is we don't know who they were. The issue of the language existing or not rests solely on linguistics.

>>18059742
>indie and occult authors; you end up reading a lot of schizophrenic "connection" crap, like IU.
This is literally Leiden Studies in Indo-European, Volume: 21. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>18059687
Due to this schizophrenic Eurasiatic or whatever, I am extremely skeptical about linguistics, you can create insane fantasies with archaeology and genetics, but as it is much more falsifiable and testable, it is more difficult for you to do these feats that our linguistic friends did. Remember the Armenian homeland?
>>18059705
No, I've known this guy since the Arian thread he's quite arrogant and vain, it's purely personal

>>18059446
How exactly did Proto-Uralic come to obtain an interrogative cognate to the Proto-Indo-European one if these language speakers were supposedly stationed 5000 km away from each other? This is at the level of Proto-Uralic. It is not a late borrowing. How exactly does this work in your mind if the languages did not share common inheritances?

>>18059746
I already answered you and the discussion is over, all your attempts and whatever the basal populations that would say "PIU" were proven false, you can write and rewrite any post, but nothing will change that... because
Kitoi culture > Yakutia LNBA > Kra001 (Proto-Uralics)

Yakutia LNBA = Kitoi + Baikal_EN
Totally different from any steppe population and were not rich in ANE for the theory to make sense, and the PU cannot be older than LNBA, no ANE, or anything else to be missing link.
T

>>18059746
it's time you accept your linguists results are either wrong or they are simply unrelated to the genetic phenomena put on full display throughout the thread.

>>18059765
It's clearly wrong, but it's personal, see how she keeps denying genetic data when it's convenient, just because the favorite theory doesn't have appeal in several fields, but anyway, genetics killed the theory 100%

>>18059760
>>18059762
>the discussion is over
Yes, it is indeed over. Allow me to explain why:
PIE and PU share pronouns, interrogatives, nominal morphology, and even verbal morphology. These are all signs that point to a shared inheritance from a third party. You can invoke Yakuta and kra001 all you want but it won't change these facts. Just because you don't know how to model this phenomenon with your current genetic knowledge or where to place it in space and time does not mean it's fake.

>>18059776
>keeps denying genetic data
Genetic data is not something to deny. Data is data. Your interpretation of the significance of the data is always up for debate.

>>18059765
He is the one who determines which data is correct or wrong, even if his larp field is reading Wikidictionary and being ignorant in linguistics, he is the one who assumes which study is false or not just because he doesn't like it, see pure schizophrenic>>18059729

>>18059785
>Genetic data is not something to deny
and the "genetic data" shows the inefficiency of Indo-Uralica, as shown in this thread 10 times. thanks
>>18059782
Cool, but....kra001 is an ancestral PU of haplogroup N and the Uralic languages. o a contact between the two groups, mainly between Indo-Iranian and several Uralic languages, with evident linguistic borrowings and influences.
Two different peoples with different languages and different origins, no ANE, no saiyains etc

>>18059729
Who wrote that crap?

>>18059797
>the "genetic data" shows the inefficiency of Indo-Uralica
Genetics is not a crystal ball. You are overstepping the bounds of genetics. It is actually silent on whether or not a language existed.

>a contact between the two groups, mainly between Indo-Iranian and several Uralic languages
How is it you still bring this up as if it was an argument after it was explained that PU shows similarity to Pre-PIE since its inception? The chronology of sound changes does not allow you to use the late language contact scenarios arbitrarily.

>>18059800
Our linguistic Master, of course.. OP

>>18059800
Allan R. Bomhard did. Anon was sharing an excerpt from Bomhard's book.

>>18059810
Looks BS, Nostratic is like saar cope

>>18059782
Proto-Uralic is somehow able to offer amazing insight into the development of labial consonants in the prehistory of PIE. The labial consonants such as labiovelars like *kʷ and the laryngeal *h3 (= /χʷ/) can be seen as having developed beside *u >>18058001 when followed by a vowel. That Proto-Uralic sheds light on this conditioning environment for labial consonants can only be possible if PIE and PU have a special relationship and the relationship extends before the existence of PIE.

>>18059797
Yakutia_LNBA is recent, no older than pre-PII (Fatyanovo). For the theory to make sense, we would expect at least as much ANE ancestry as Paleo-Siberians, but this is not the case. The ANE ancestry is negligible and pure noise. Ancient Paleo-Siberians had 30% ANE ancestry and 64-70% East Asian ancestry. The Baikal populations (Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age) had only 6.4% to 19.1% ANE ancestry, while the rest was derived from ANEA. Fofonovo_EN had 12-17% ANE and 83-87% East Asian ancestry. Therefore, it is unlikely that the ANE spoke a "PIU" language, since Uralic is recent and is not a mixture of Paleo-Siberian and ANE

>>18057711 (OP)
The general consensus among linguists is that there is no convincing evidence for an 'Indo-Uralic' language family. The null hypothesis is that there is no genetic relationship between the two families, and no one has presented sufficient evidence to refute this. To reconstruct a 'Proto-Indo-Uralic' language, it would be necessary to demonstrate a relationship between the two families, but so far, no theory has been convincing. It is likely that the two families are unrelated within the period we can reconstruct with certainty

>>18059868
>the nineties a decline as seen in the theory which proposes at least two strata of Indo-European (with the archaism of Hittite barely mentioned), with the most commonly used manuals barely presenting the effects of gradual dialectalisation
.... oh no

>>18059903
one of the most erudite and masturbated Indo-Uraloids like Kortlandt, also says that the Uralic people moved westwards, to the steppes, "at the same time, but hey, that has already been disproved... people who write about this theory are slowly running out of arguments.

>>18059827
Because its BS

>>18059927
If you read the above sketch, which has its favorite shtypothesis, you will realize that Proto-Indo-European speakers and Proto-Uralic speakers are supposed to have lived very close to each other, that is what the proponents of this shtypothesis originally proposed, but it turns out that the PU was so far from the PIE that any contact between the two before 2000 BC is illogical, one was in eastern Yakutia and the other in Ukraine

>>18059746
>You also haven't demonstrated what Yakutia people spok
Proto-uralic

>>18057987
insect, we're dealing with a Sprachbund effect on actual family kinship. This may well extend to words like the ones you mention through earlier borrowings.

I'm reading this thread and since I don't know who's who, I'll just write without directly responding to a specific anon. Although genetics is important, some of you are obsessed with linguistics to the point of denying the practical effectiveness of genetics in the field of linguistics. I'll respond to some mistakes that some have made and I'll criticize one of the main aspects of the Indo-Uralic theory. To avoid spamming, I'll try to summarize everything. If an explanation is needed for a specific point, I'll be happy to explain. Part 1

>>18059938
Assuming a long distance between PIE and PU speakers puts limitations on possible scenarios but it must be remembered that the present distribution of Uralic speakers is the result of a long distance migration. An earlier long distance migration in a different direction is therefore plausible.

The issue we now have if we insist they had such a great geographic separation is that the similarities to Pre-PIE in Uralic are still there from the birth of Proto-Uralic. Therefore asserting that Proto-Uralic's homeland is Yakutia means the Pre-Proto-Uralic language came from the west, and this more western location is where they picked up speech that brought the similarities to PIE in Proto-Uralic.

>>18059967
Part 2
In my view, one of the biggest problems is Kassian's interpretation, as they apparently confused similarity with regular sound correspondences, which is of paramount importance.

Linguistic material is systematically minimized, and an objective statistical approach is used to convince the world that this limited and disconnected linguistic evidence is sufficient to prove the common origin of the language families in questionand in probalistical terms, if only 7/50 forms are offered as "proof" of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis (instead of the thousands that define the historical reality of the Indo-European and Uralic families), we have a problem here. They tend to prioritize words that resemble each other by chance, rather than historically related cognates, because chance similarities are phonetically similar by definition, while regular sound correspondences can occur between similar or dissimilar sounds.

I think Kassian and colleagues are trying to reinvent the wheel by replacing comparative methodology with a questionable approach. They group random similarities into "classes" of sounds and claim this proves a connection between languages. But critics say these classes are not based on anything real and that the method has nothing to do with true comparative linguistics. Furthermore, it seems the approach was designed to prove a specific hypothesis, not to discover the truth.

>>18059984
>Kassian
I'm not sure why you brought this person up. I am not familiar with his work. The material under discussion in this thread is primarily from this book which represents an important development in Indo-Uralic studies:
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409354

>>18059984
Part 3?
I haven't read many IU authors because I find the subject irrelevant and I don't have time for it, but the few I've read are pretty weak, according to Kassian's own statistics, and he said something quite disconcerting:
>Thus those three items do not really meet the authors’ two-consonant identity criterion. If we exclude them, only four remain, and as the authors show in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, four or more such pairs appear in either 32% or 18% of randomized comparisons, again depending on which version of D-classes one uses. Such a result is comparable to results of earlier studies and actually suggests that the earlier studies were right: lexical resemblances between IE and Uralic are enough greater than average to create reasonable suspicions of genetic relationship, but not great enough for statistical proof

If my interpretation is correct, of the 7 out of 50 word pairs presented to prove the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, they are actually monoconsonantal roots that do not meet the criterion established by Kassian et al. of considering only biconsonantal roots in their permutation tests. So... isn't that a problem?

And, to make matters worse, the remaining 4 pairs have a high probability.

>>18059991
>>18059984
Lmao Did you just realize that the Indo-Uralic proponents are dishonest? Look at the discussion above, it's all extremely biased and based on favoritism, it's a hypothesis that attracts crazy people.

>>18059990
There's no denying he's a relevant proponent. I've explained my position on this in another post. Even with the new generation of Nostratic enthusiasts armed with more sophisticated tools, the evidence base for the Indo-Uralic hypothesis remains the same as it was nearly two centuries ago. There hasn't been much consistent progress so far, I don't usually limit myself to work Y by author Y, I personally think it's a waste of time and appeals to authority
>>18059995
the thread is terrible

>>18060003
I do think at the very least, the previous ignorance of implosive stops and their utility in explaining Indo-Uralic correspondences had decreased the number of obvious cognates. I think things like comparable nominal and verbal morphology cannot be coincidental, but it is unclear how far back in time that sort relationship must go.

>>18059991
Ringe was BTFO'd and probably tried to kill himself. He responded semantically to critics of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, but was disappointed that there was no statistical proof of the Indo-Uralic relationship. Not this time, sisters.
>>18060016
ignorance and Indo-Uralic go hand in hand, troon

>>18060028
He's like the authors of biogenesis, they lived off it, and when the cardboard castle falls... but I wonder how can such a rigorous expert believe in something that his critical analysis dismantles? On the one hand, he claims that objective tests show insufficient evidence to prove Indo-Uralic linguistic kinship, but on the other, he still suspects that there is a connection between Indo-European and Uralic languages...

>>18057711 (OP)
It's not whether it has merits - it's whether you can prove it. Linguistics is a science.
I support a Proto-World. But you need actually proof. Evidence.

Correspondences across languages. The Comparative Method that got us most reconstructions of Proto languages can't go back far enough.

>>18060016
I don't think anyone is willing to read what the authors wrote. For example, one of the most respected authors, Ringe, specifically states that if there really is a genetic relationship, the theory is more plausible, so we should take that into account. But that's not the case. Ringe seems to be being overly generous with the proponents of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis by accepting forms that have no solid linguistic basis. He himself criticized the lack of robust linguistic evidence. It's as if he's giving them incentive to continue defending an idea that has no basis.

>>18060046
The crook you're writing about denies genetic data as irrelevant, don't even try.
He took the criticism to heart and mysteriously, my comments were deleted... strange.

>>18060035
>but I wonder how can such a rigorous expert believe in something that his critical analysis dismantles?
Because if you like linguistics you just explore these things for fun whether or not it leads to a new proto language, so while the geneticists could "debunk" Indo-Uralic a million times over, they will never understand that human languages are so interconnected and interesting that a linguist can just keep carrying on finding and learning new things like a detective and be fulfilled.

>>18060062
I don't think I understood your comment. No one works or formulates a theory just for fun. There is academic involvement in these studies. You and I can read this for fun, and in principle, the authors too. But fun can't be the point. There must always be a commitment to truth and a general understanding of the terms. The author I cited, for example, is one of those who believe that the fields are indispensable to each other. He spent so much time seeking completeness in genetics, but as you said, and as far as my limited knowledge leads me, he failed. Ringe seems to agree with Kassian et al.'s approach to Uralic phylogeny, which raises questions about his objectivity
>>18060050
Okay, but let's stop insulting each other here, that makes us gay, in my opinion. A real man doesn't need insults, even as opponents, we can respect each other, that's what my religion preaches.

>>18060089
Dude, read this anon's petty behavior. He's arrogant and denied any kind of argument against this hypothesis. The guy is obsessed with this. Insults are for stubborn people. He ended up with another thread with Indo-Uralic spamming in addition to the screaming sameflag and he hates your religion including kek

>>18060089
>I don't think I understood your comment. No one works or formulates a theory just for fun.
Okay, if that's what you think, then I would assume his intuition still suspects something is there rather than thinking dishonesty is behind his actions. That is unless you think there is something about his character that warrants a lack of faith.

>>18060097
Disagreement is common and always coming, but honestly? I don't think this anon is that bad, in fact I noticed how people bother him and started persecuting him in a petty way, because they posed as him and me in the thread about Iberian mythology, people here are mean so be careful, because you might be talking to someone else. Well, if he hates my religion, too bad for him

>>18060097
>he hates your religion including kek
Weird comment. I'm not even sure what this is in reference to and I certainly don't know his religion. Is making up weird lies on the fly your favorite pass time?

>>18060129
those anti-Christianity and spamming threads by Russel Gmirkin are made by you, it's already confirmed.
>>18060106
Of course, disagreeing is one thing, but denying facts and relativizing what you like or dislike is another thing. The guy has a bias and distorts the data for his benefit, or rather, to defend his theory. The other anons educated him and nothing happens, damn it.

>>18060146
What? I don't make Christianity threads.

>>18060106
>>18060129
When are you transvestites going to make more threads about mythological and etymological autism, damn it? You discover shit that I didn't even know existed. Save 4chan, fuck, save it.

>>18060159
No, I can't do it. I'm too busy arguing for the hell of it because I triggered an autistic reaction after sharing a 2019 book about Indo-Uralic and now everyone wants to debunk it and nobody cares about the cool linguistic connections.

>>18060176
it didn't happen, besides, nobody needs to talk about Indo-Uralic there are more interesting things like those cognate of Aryans that was good

>>18060176
Did you play god of war?

noise

>>18057830
that place is actually very close to the homeland of ANS (the ancestors of Proto-Indo-Europeans).
It strengthens the hypothesis that regards IE and Uralic languages as sister groups to each other.

>>18060351
>ANS
?
>the ancestors of Proto-Indo-Europeans
ANE are not ancestors of PIE, you are being pathetically simplistic, the Indo-Europeans were formed only in 4000 BC and it was not even ANE directly, since the populations derived from EHG had other components that differentiate it from ANE, such as WHG, obviously, and in the case of PIEs, even CHG and ANF. The CLV cline is not ANE
>It strengthens the hypothesis that regards IE and Uralic languages as sister groups to each other.
Already debunked in this thread

>>18060395
>ANE are not ancestors of PIE
They are. It's natural to believe that their languages have been passed down to all east european R1 clades including PIE, considering their haplogroup.

>>18059868
>genetic results
>uralic is recent

How hard it is for you to understand that outside of creol languages (very rare!) all languages are equally ancient and have lineage going back to first word uttered by men. Proto- does not mean start on language but earliest point in time we can reach with methodology of historical linguistics. Your "Uralic is recent" is non-argument rgds to Indo-Uralic.

Genetics: Modern Finns have 5% of Yakutia_lnba, modern Esthonians not even that. Using your backwards logic their languages are not Uralic then..

>>18060395
So thats what its all about. Piir and LPU contact already destroyed all out of bharat fantasies and any genetic connection between PIE and ANE destroys Southern Arc nonsense. Any connection between U and IE lineages in dark history of mesolithic past is thus poison for you.

Got it.

vgh... the Uralic and the IE languages...
The ancient brothers of East Siberia...

>>18060597
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/07/ancient-dna-solves-mystery-of-hungarian-finnish-language-familys-origins/
>Estonians retain about 2 percent, Finns about 10. At the eastern end of the distribution, the Nganasan people — clustered at the northernmost tip of Russia — have close to 100 percent Yakutia ancestry. At the other extreme, modern-day Hungarians have lost nearly all of theirs.

If anything this recent study on Uralics proves the correlation between genetics and language can be weak. Estonians have 2%?? How do we know that a hypothetical genetic marker for Proto-Indo-Uralics isn't hiding somewhere at similarly low levels?
There is a lack of self-awareness and an amount of dishonesty from the proponents of genetics to the exclusion of all other methodologies in that they refuse to recognize the correlation between language and genes is not an unbreakable law.