I continue here, because the linguistic thread is locked.
Yeah well, Yakuts and Samoyeds also carry Y-DNA N1c at an over 90% level in their population;
Wrong again: no Samoyed people have that much N1c, only N1b.
Source: Tambets et al. 2004:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181943/
I believe N1c1 is purely Asian. Makes you wonder if Finns are actually white.
They may have mostly Europeans genetics; but N1c1 seems to be an Asian haplogroup.
You should understand that genome-widely Finns have only few percents Asian genes – that is a scientific result. Balts have 40 % of N1c1, too. In reality N1c1 spread to Europe so slowly, that in every step westwards the gene pool was more and more European. Therefore the high frequency of N1c1 does not correlate with high proportion of Asian genes in the genome-wide level.
Do you understand this? It is very important to understand. Similarly, R1a was born somewhere in the Eastern Asia, but still Slavic peoples are not genetically Asian, although they have great proportions of R1a. Do you understand?
Paternal lineages cannot tell anything about the genome-wide composition; only genome-wide results can!
Besides, Central Europeans and Scandinavians have a lot of genes from Near Eastern farmers, while Northeast Europeans have very little of these Asian genes and mostly ancient North European hunter-gatherer genes. (See Skoglund et al. studies)
I fully recognize that I am not telling the ultimate truth, but I think that when we are making etymologies we should take into account all evidence in all languages without any a priori hierarchy, and there are words in Finnish language that have a counterpart with a k/g sound: taula – degla, kaura – hagri, kaula - kaklas .
Yes, but these go back to original *k which in Old West Finnish only has developed into a vowel u. The word rauta has u in all Finnic languages, so it cannot go back to original *k but *u. Therefore an etymology where there is *k in the donor language cannot be correct. Because we know that other Finnic languages did not change their *k > u, we cannot assume that they did so in this one and only exceptional word. Right?
So, to sum up, it is possible that the Uralic protolanguage as it is constructed at the moment does not really have much to do with the modern Finns or their immediate ancestors or DNA N1c VL 29+ in general but is more related to ancient northeners, such as ancient Karelians of Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, and their y DNA whatever it was.
True, we don’t know which paternal lineage brought the Uralic language to Finland.
What I would like to know personally; could it be possible Uralic developed as a Caucasian tongue? Or is it East Asian? This would explain why Ugrics such as the Mansi and Khanty have Mongoloid/East Asian genetics like Turkic-speaking Yakuts. While other Ugrics like Hungarians seem European.
This is the case with all wide-spread language families: there are great genetic differences within the families. This is because languages spread via language shifts: some people move to a new area, and if their language is prestigious, it is adopted by the locals.
Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe, while Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Siberia. Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Europe, but we don’t know if its predecessor was spoken in Europe.
You should understand that both claims cannot be true:
- Part of Uralic/IE speakers are Asian, so the speakers of the protolanguage were Asian.
- Part of Uralic/IE speakers are European, so the speakers of the protolanguage were European.
Moreover, you cannot just arbitrarily decide either option – the choice must be done through scientific procedure.
