How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?

[qtr]

No, but that ethnicity for sure didn't exist. Word Balt was started to use in 19th century for Letto-Lithuanians.

Even if we come to conlusion (somehow) that proto-Balto-Slavic language is equal term to proto-Baltic, than you need to understand some things. So, if this theory (hypothesis) is true than we have such situation; Baltic continuum of languages (not an ethnicity Balts). So this continuum of languages was made from 3 dialects: West Baltic (dead), East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian) and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect. But that what today means BALTS are exclusively Letto-Lithuanian dialect, and their dialect is defined as Baltic in 19th century. So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean? That Slavs come from Lithuanians and Latvians? That they spoke their dialect or what? It would be retarded claim. West Balts are one, East Balts are second and the Slavs (alternatively South Balts) are third thing. So your claim "There are no Slavs before 6th century" is nonsense. You are using (incorrect) term Baltic languages, for Balto-Slavic which would be more correct. Since Baltic languages are, i must say again modern Lithuanian and Latvian, who were always different dialects than the Slavic one. So this is the thing of terminology, and you are using the term "Balt", then i can use the term "North Slavs" for Balts, and it would not change anything. The sense is same.



I see you are proving your unknowledge. When Cyril and Methodius started to work, there was already many many dialects of Slavic languages. South Slavs already had their dialect, West Slavs already had their dialects, and East Slavs already had their dialects (which was quite similar to the West Slavic one). You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic. It's funny.



Hahahah. It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists. Main modern statement is that Slavic is Southern Baltic dialect (dialect of Baltic continuum not of the ethnicity Balts - modern Letto-Lithuanians).

For example, you can read it from Frederik Kortlandt, from Toporov, from Ivanov etc...

Part of Kortlandt's work:

There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Balticinnovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before theseparation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “ProtoBalto-Slavic”refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “SouthBaltic”. The opposite view is taken by Miguel Villanueva Svensson (2014) and EugenHill (2016). Here I specify the differences which underlie the disagreement.

Part of Villanueva's work (who thiks otherwise):

According to Villanueva (2014: 173), the “most serious problem for Baltic unityis the apparent existence of non-trivial isoglosses between East Baltic and Slavic (e.g.thematic genitive singular, “nine”, ”third”, etc.)”. He opposes gen.sg. Lith. vil̃ko andOCS vlъka < *-ãd to OPr. deiwas (2014: 163). In fact, the ending Lith. -o, Slavic -arepresents *-ōd and can be identified with the Latin ablative ending -ōd, not **-ād, forwhich there is no evidence whatever. The Lithuanian reflex is -o because the endingwas unstressed in all accent classes (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 6, 46). Prussian added ananalogical -s to the Balto-Slavic ending in accordance with the other flexion types, allof which had a genitive in -s (cf. Vaillant 1958: 30, Kortlandt 2009: 192). The originalending was preserved in the Old Prussian proverb Deues does dantes, Deues doesgeitka ‘God give teeth, God give bread’ (cf. Sjöberg 1969) and in the Basle epigramnykoyte pēnega doyte ‘you do not want to give money’, where an emendation to -an or-as is unsatisfactory (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 215f.). There is no ancient isogloss betweenEast Baltic and Slavic here.The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect betweenWest Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de- for neinLith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. Thesame holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in EastBaltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 45f., Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’,acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtī́yas for earlier *triyo-, is archaic in comparison with Lith.trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre- from *treies ‘three’. Another commondevelopment of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of-s- in the pronominal dat.sg. and loc.sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu,tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām



Slavic language is from Baltic continuum, not Baltic language (modern Letto-Lithuanian family).



Who proclaim it as Baltic? You, or some relevant archeologists? Names? Quotations?

Those are official informations about Milograd culture:

"The Milograd culture (also spelled Mylohrad, also known as Pidhirtsi culture on Ukrainian territory) is an archaeological culture, lasting from about the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD. Geographically, it corresponds to present day southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, in the area of the confluence of the Dnieper and the Pripyat, north of Kiev. Their ethnic origin is uncertain."

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milograd_culture

I came here and opened a thread searching for someone who will post just proven things. You are posting your personal assumptions, and i respect this, but i don't respect that you are representing it as official and real. While nobody proved it yet. Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?

I am curious about Southern baltic language term use in your argument, but I explicitly mentioned, that recent historians called Kievan Rus(which contains southern areal of Baltic, as well) as Eatern Baltic state, because Lithuanian is considered Eastern Baltic.
Besides, I explained about not my research actually, but ideas I've picked up, how prussians were linked to slavs, whic does not make slavic as southern baltic, but creole of western baltic, and it still does not make any paralel existence of slavic language.

No, Im using correct term of Baltic languages, which explicitly mean - anything that used Baltic and continued to use it till now or until extinction. We have a huge misunderstansding, because I suppose, that all of these theories about baltic-slavic relations are outdated and are not supported by historical and linguistical evidence(following picture is 100 years old and you are trying to shuffle slavic as one of those):

And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.

Also another thing. Western baltic does not exist - there are at least couple of groups of languages, that are related to each other and who for the sake of simplicity are called as western. Yes, I am aware, that wiki says otherwise(again), but wiki is not authority in these matters at all.

I need to understand your measurement of half of Europe, but thanks to church slavonic, Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes. With church slavonic all of rural greeks became slavic speaking just as well as nonslavic people of Balkans, who were orthodox christians. Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?


"It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists." - What about this: "In linguistics nothing can be solved by voting, but by research."

About Villanueva:
Oh, we are dwelling into something, that what I've noted, that eastern slavs were assimilated balts. Not all of them were eastern balts, though - some of them were even more eastern, than eastern balts and some, like galindians were colonists from west of eastern balts. Also, I would need to understand to which specific time period Villanueva is refering to. It should be noted, that eastern slavs were hit by church slavonic very heavily - I must wonder, if that author is even aware of what could happen as a result of mix of eastern baltic(all that is used for church in eastern slavic comes from church slavonic) and church slavonic in eastern slavic languages? Also, if you did not understand what I wrote there, that actually contradicts anything you are mentioning as unified slavic language and proto-language, because most of that is influences of preslavic eastern baltic substratum on eastern slavic, which are not present in other slavic languages, but we are still talking proto-slavic, as slavic, that originated from one slavic group, right? Btw, I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.


Well, I do not see any problems regarding Milograd culture. Wiki has used unprecise terminology, which is open to strange interpretations, but it is Baltic with unknown ethnic origin - as we do not know name for ethnicity of Milograd culture. Unless we are ready to accept their identification as Neuri or baltic name would be Nauri, which comes from Narew name of Bug river tributary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuri
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm

I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.

What is the point of mentioning other people and by baltic ethnicity? What's the use for this kind of argument? Only thing what I can come up, is that they are not as many and most probably they have nothing to say, where I have

 

[qtɾ]

and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect.

I am curious about Southern baltic language term use in your argument, but I explicitly mentioned, that historians called Kievan Rus(which contains southern areal of Baltic, as well) as Eatern Baltic state, because Lithuanian is considered Eastern Baltic.
Besides, I explained about not my research actually, but ideas I've picked up, how prussians were linked to slavs, whic does not make slavic as southern baltic, but creole of western baltic, and it still does not make any paralel existence of slavic language.

So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean?

No, Im using correct term of Baltic languages, which explicitly mean - anything that used Baltic and continued to use it till now or until extinction. We have a huge misunderstansding, because I suppose, that all of these theories about baltic-slavic relations are outdated and are not supported by historical and linguistical evidence that has moved forward for the past 100 years.

And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.

You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic.

I need to understand your measurement of half of Europe, but thanks to church slavonic, Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes. With church slavonic all of rural greeks became slavic speaking just as well as nonslavic people of Balkans, who were orthodox christians. Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?

It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists.

What about this quote: "In linguistics nothing can be solved by voting, but by research."

Villanueva

Oh, we are dwelling into something, that what I've noted, that eastern slavs were assimilated balts. Not all of them were eastern balts, though - some of them were even more eastern, than eastern balts and some, like galindians were colonists from west of eastern balts. Also, I would need to understand to which specific time period Villanueva is refering to. It should be noted, that eastern slavs were hit by church slavonic very heavily - I must wonder, if that author is even aware of what could happen as a result of mix of eastern baltic(all that is used for church in eastern slavic comes from church slavonic) and church slavonic in eastern slavic languages? Also, if you did not understand what I wrote there, that actually contradicts anything you are mentioning as unified slavic language and proto-language, because most of that is influences of preslavic eastern baltic substratum on eastern slavic, which are not present in other slavic languages, but we are still talking proto-slavic, as slavic, that originated from one slavic group, right? Btw, I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.

Their ethnic origin is uncertain.

Well, I do not see any problems regarding Milograd culture. Wiki has used unprecise terminology, which is open to strange interpretations, but it is Baltic with unknown ethnic origin - as we do not know name for ethnicity of Milograd culture. Unless we are ready to accept their identification as Neuri(they were mentioned by Herodotus) or baltic name would be Nauri, which comes from Narew name of Bug river tributary.

I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.

Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?

Listen, I would like to have some proper thinking slavic person to chat, as well, but hardly any professor comes here... :/
so, can you just stop being irritated - and you will get exactly the same attitude from me

 

[RajvoSa]

And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.

Nom you are not with him. Since you claim that Slavic basically is originally form of Prussian, while he claim that Slavic is not from Prussian, neither from East Baltic dialect, but that was one individual dialect, he claimed that this dialect was in the southern Baltic area (different from West and East Baltic who will evolve later to individual language family. That is the theory of Toporov, and if this theory is correct, again we have Balto-Slavic language community, but not just Baltic.

Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?

Many people were assimilated, but what is your point there?

Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes.

Rus area spoke the language who mainly originate from the Slavic tribes "Vyatichi" and "Polyani" who are originally West Slavic tribe and migrated in Eastern Europe, and force their language. Is it so hard to research this?

I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.

Well, unlike you i see it as option, becouse no one proved him wrong. If his theory is correct, then East Baltic dialect is result of intermediate of West Baltic and Slavic. Also there is an example in Baltic and Slavic languages which can actually separate them ("Balto-Slavic split period")

Devet (OCS) - Devintas (Lit.)

For example, this comparation proves that they are both from the one ancestral language and that they evolved as paralels. There are many arguments who still go on the "Balto-Slavic" theory side, but you proclaim something as definitly, while it is not. That's the problem. Not your opinion, but your proclamation.

I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.

You should say: "My opinion is that Milograd is Baltic culture" but you wrote here as it is Baltic culture definitly, while no one in the world arhceologist didn't prove yet.

so, can you just stop being irritated - and you will get exactly the same attitude from me ;

Unlike you, i post here an assumptions, hypothesis about the Balto-Slavic languages which problem is not solved yet, while you are posting your personal assumptions and proclaim it as official.

 

[Yetos]

Maybe Yodization? i and j

compare the sound of

Germania
Germanja

 

[RajvoSa]

Maybe Yodization? i and j

compare the sound of

Germania
Germanja

Well, today, the language difference is clear. It's easy to differ Baltic branch from Slavic. The question is about ancient times.

Yodization came with Cyrill and Methodius to Slavic languages most likely.

 

[Ygorcs]

I have read, that US linguists do not use term Indo-Europeans, but instead use Eurasians, as there are still a lots of IE speaking people outside India and Europe. I could just start with counting armenians, kurdish, all indo-iranyans in Iran and Afganistan, even Pakistan(but I regard it as Indian region), so term Indo-European is really bad or - terrible to describe modern and not to mention - ancient distribution of IE languages.

I never heard that term in reference to Indo-European speakers instead of merely "people who live in Eurasia", but anyway I think that term is even worse than Indo-Europeans, because the term "Eurasians" by definition is already used and perfectly adequate to describe all the peoples who live in Eurasia, that is, anywhere in Europe or Asia, and of course a huge percentage of the Eurasians - "people from Eurasia" - do not speak any Indo-European language. Any term for the Indo-European language will necessarily be partial, because of the huge expanse of that language family, but people simply need to accept a convenient, even if imperfect, term if they want to dig deeper into what really matters, because if Indo-European gets called "Euriranindiamericentralasian" or "Washynkpathakan" it will still be just a name given to the Indo-European language family, nothing else. There is not that much in a name in this case, it's just the result of a scientific agreement, exactly like "Afro-Asiatic" and many others.

As for your point 4, you can search it for yourself, it shouldn't be difficult using Google, but I can just stress that I don't make these things up... but I'd like to know why you are so sure that West and East Balts had no process of divergence even if very early in their history, but just "actually completelly opposite". Well, if you say that what happened was completely the opposite, i.e. that they converged, that logically means that before that convergence they were different branches - no convergence can happen between two things that are already the same thing -, and since both of those branches came from PIE we can only conclude, logically, that even if a later process of convergence took place those languages had first a process of divergence, gradually splitting into different branches before they again got closer and closer to each other. Those processes are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ygorcs]

2. Proto-Greeks were not even PIE, but semitic at best. If you insist, that all pre-hellenic greeks were PIE, you have no idea about topic..

No, dear, despite your aggressive and impolite self-confidence, it is you who have no idea about the topic since you are confusing even very basic terms and even wanting to redefine simple convenient premises to understand this topic better. When someone talks about "Proto-Greeks" he is not talking about people who lived in Greece before the Hellenes arrived, okay? Proto-Greeks can't have been "Semitic at best" because by definition Proto-Greek is the intermediate stage between PIE and Mycenaean Greek, regardless of who spoke it originally. As you know, people can very easily shift their language and be assimilated to other language group, muuuuch more easily than they can change their genetic makeup. That observation is so basic that I'm a bit ashamed to have to explain it to you. Proto-Greek refers to the IE language that is the ancestor of the Greek language that came to be spoken in Greece in the Bronze Age, not to pre-hellenic "Greeks".

You are confusing linguistics and genetics, and that can only lead to a lot of confusion. The origins of a language are not identical to the origins of the people who, centuries or even milennia later, were speaking the later forms of that language. If you want to talk about the pre-Greek-speaking demographic situation of Greece, you shouldn't think of Proto-Greek, but about Pre-Hellenic/Pre-Greek populations of modern Greece. These are two totally different concepts. Those who were effectively Proto-Greek, i.e. were speakers of an IE language that eventually became Greek, certainly lived nowhere in Greece when Proto-Greek split off from PIE.

I'd suggest you to get off your high heels because your confidence is making you underestimate what other people are saying and you end up saying platitudes or even basic misunderstandings as if you were somehow giving us a very relevant lesson and impressive corrections. Or at least pay a bit more of attention on what other people are saying, especially at the true, widely accepted meaning of the words that they are using.

 

[Ygorcs]

3. There is no Common PIE the way you describe it. Balts has nothing in common with germanic nonPIE lingual ancestry, because germanic language contain 30% of nonPIE lexicon and lingists are pulling hairs from their shiny heads to understand from where it comes. Also nothing in common with nonPIE greek, and neither with any other nonPIE ancestry of indo-iranian, who has heavy dravidian or even Indus valley civilisation extinct language influences. There is nothing more proto-PIE, than Baltic, because they are most archaic - to all languages, including recent development of slavic, which is not archaic as baltic is. If you can't understand what means archaic, well - Baltic languages are relic to ALL IE languages. I'm not saying, that they have not changed, but the closest to PIE you will have is any Baltic language

You're trying to use the degree of phonological or grammatical conservativeness of a language to prove that it is the ultimate origin of that language, the "most [insert name of the language family here: IE, Germanic etc.]" of all even though several other languages also descend from that same language? Is, for example, Icelandic the ultimate origin of the Germanic languages, or maybe we should now state, instead of simply calling Proto-Germanic, that we can safely bet that Proto-Germanic = (Old) Icelandic? Or can we safely trust that everything in Icelandic is just a preserved "relic" of Proto-Germanic, because it chaged less than other languages? Of course not, Icelandic also went through its own path of development.

That's almost insane, one claim has nothing to do with the other. You're too lured by the archaic characteristics of Baltic languages, so much that you must think that it must mean something essential, fundamental - but it doesn't. Baltic is a branch like others derived from that pre-expansion Common PIE ("common" refers to a language still without many divergent dialects spoken in a wide area subject to many distinct foreign influences). It simply changed less than the others, there is no "mystery" there nor some "fundamental hidden truth" there. Baltic tongues look more like PIE. That claim and "PIE is Proto-Baltic" have nothing to do with each other, one does not derive logically from the other at least if you know the basics of linguistics.

Your reference to non-IE substrates in other IE branches means nothing because I was talking about the Common PIE which was obviously spoken as such only before the wide expansion of PIE dialects in other parts of Europe and Asia. The substrates coming from non-IE languages are a result of centuries or even milennia of interaction with other peoples in that long process of expansion of IE-speaking tribes, when we can safely argue that Common PIE was a thing of the past and we were seeing increasingly divergent dialects spliting off from PIE and into related, but distinct languages. In the case of Germanic, it had as much as 3,000 years to incorporate that non-IE substrate that is not found in the Baltic branch, from the times of the first arrival of PIE speakers in Central Europe to the times that Proto-Germanic was still spoken even as late as circa 1 AD.

It's simply ludicrous to claim that "there is nothing more proto-PIE (proto-proto-Indo-European, what does that even mean?!?!) than Baltic". "Proto-PIE" is no adjective to be quantified if one given branch is "more" or "less" PIE, it simply derives from PIE or not, and the latter history of the development of the daughter branches' lexicon, syntax and phonology is a different matter, it's not about PIE any more. Baltic is simply more conservative and, because of that, seemingly more archaic than other IE branches, and that's all. That tells us nothing really reliable about the origin of PIE, much less it is enough to claim, as you do without virtually any support from actual scientists on that topic, that PIE is exactly Proto-Baltic.

For starters, if PIE was identical to Proto-Baltic, we'd see all the innovations and peculiarties of Baltic in most of the Indo-European branches, because these would all be directly descended from that Proto-Baltic - and, sorry, we just don't see that pattern, and even the earliest common stages of Baltic language have many grammatical, lexical and phonological characteristics that are only theirs or only shared with a few other IE branches, mainly Slavic and, much more seldom, Indo-Iranian and possibly Daco-Thracian.

 

[Ygorcs]

As for your understanding of PIE, I'm aware of that and this is actually what I meant, that PIE = proto-Baltic, and if you will prove otherwise, well... we will have a Nobel prize award(of how it is possible to break science) to Brasilian

Why the irony? Now I am REALLY interested to read your explanation for that, and I hope you don't shy away from making what you really wanted to mean very clearly (no matter how bigoted or ridiculous it probably is), lest I think even worse of you even from this short exchange of messages that we've had until now. I'll be waiting.

 

[lyakh]

In ancient remains of Balts from Latvia and Lithuania CTS1211 was found:

Spiginas2, 2130-1750 BC, Baltic_EBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+
Spiginas25, 800–545 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+

Kivutkalns222, 805–515 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns19, 730-400 BC, Baltic_LBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns209, 405-230 BC, Baltic_IA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+

So CTS1211 not always is Slavic, it can be Baltic also.

I am interested if CTS3402 clade has Baltic branches which are absent in Slavs.

I suppose that Trzciniec culture may be the source of Balto-Slavic ethnos.

 

[RajvoSa]

In ancient remains of Balts from Latvia and Lithuania CTS1211 was found:

Spiginas2, 2130-1750 BC, Baltic_EBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+
Spiginas25, 800–545 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+

Kivutkalns222, 805–515 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns19, 730-400 BC, Baltic_LBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns209, 405-230 BC, Baltic_IA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+

So, most of the CTS1211 (if not all of them) are found in Baltic area? Or am i wrong?

I suppose that Trzciniec culture may be the source of Balto-Slavic ethnos.

Well, here we don't have problem about proto Balto-Slavic area, but an individual ethnicities of both. For example, this guy "qtr" proclaimed officially that there was no Slavic language before 5th century, and that everything which is related to them before 5th century is actually Baltic. But also..... many other nonsenses such as that Cyrill and Methodious imposed Slavic language to Balts in Eastern Europe and then they became Slavs, also that Milograd Culture is Baltic archeology and many others proclamations...

 

[lyakh]

5 ancient samples from Baltic countries were tested for Y-DNA and the result was in all of them CTS1211+. It does not mean that all CTS1211 is Baltic. Some branches of CTS1211 (like CTS3402?) appear to be Slavic, not Baltic. I suppose that CTS1211 was present in ancient time in what is today Belarus and northern Ukraine. That CTS1211 could be proto-Slavic.

Balts (not only Lithuanians and Latvians, but also extinct West Balts) carried very large amount of Y-DNA N, especially subclade M2783, which has TMRCA (according to YFull) of 2700 ybp.

 

[Zeus10]

Northern India was conquered by people who started from the same region, the fruitful, rich, fertile banks of the Black Sea. Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.

How could I possibly have a constructive debate, with someone who claims, O.CH.S is the Sanskrit? O.CH.S is the mother language of all Slavic people and has nothing to with IE migration nonsense. Period.

 

[RajvoSa]

5 ancient samples from Baltic countries were tested for Y-DNA and the result was in all of them CTS1211+. It does not mean that all CTS1211 is Baltic. Some branches of CTS1211 (like CTS3402?) appear to be Slavic, not Baltic. I suppose that CTS1211 was present in ancient time in what is today Belarus and northern Ukraine. That CTS1211 could be proto-Slavic.

Balts (not only Lithuanians and Latvians, but also extinct West Balts) carried very large amount of Y-DNA N, especially subclade M2783, which has TMRCA (according to YFull) of 2700 ybp.

Milograd culture area should be tested really.

 

[qtr]

5 ancient samples from Baltic countries were tested for Y-DNA and the result was in all of them CTS1211+. It does not mean that all CTS1211 is Baltic. Some branches of CTS1211 (like CTS3402?) appear to be Slavic, not Baltic. I suppose that CTS1211 was present in ancient time in what is today Belarus and northern Ukraine. That CTS1211 could be proto-Slavic.

Balts (not only Lithuanians and Latvians, but also extinct West Balts) carried very large amount of Y-DNA N, especially subclade M2783, which has TMRCA (according to YFull) of 2700 ybp.

1. I did not test those.
2. According to that blog, it was ancient DNA(no idea - extracted from dead people? with the site names - it looks like so), so it is not about modern living DNA, which is different thing. It just established that R1a in it's earliest forms were present between Baltic and Black seas 5000+ years ago already. It also points out, that R1a originated in Europe and not in Iran, as current history teaches us. R1b were first ones who split off from R1. Where are the most ancient R1 samples is still open question - keeping in mind, that there also exists R2, which is most SE Asia - India etc.
3. N arrived in Europe(over Ural mountains) 2300+ years later than R1a appeared in Europe. Author of this topic was interested how to distinguish R1a in slavic and baltic, not N or I2, as that is completely different topic, and he should have made an different topic if he was interested in that. Or are you with mentioning N implying something very rude, same as author?

 

[qtr]

instead of simply calling Proto-Germanic, that we can safely bet that Proto-Germanic = (Old) Icelandic?

Icelandic derived from Norwegian. I don't care how germanic languages are called - if you say, they should be scandinavian, because they originated in scandinavia I'm fine with that.

This is not about the naming, but placement - we can call them Q W R T Y or whatever, but if Q group shows all signs, that it is derived from W group, then it becomes branch of W group. Why would anyone assume, that IE language and any other model is set in stone? There exist views, that Basque is isolate of IE, even if it is today proclaimed as not belonging to IE, that does not mean, that they are not going to be in future.

13-03-18, 21:33 much like Proto-Greek is the direct descendant of PIE

Clearly this is a contradiction, because Proto-greek is not direct descendant of PIE, but it is hybrid language of unknown languages and PIE. It still does not make it false, if we declare, that most archaic language group was closest to PIE. Yeah, but you are right - can't use IE as name for current language family, so let's rename it to: European-Indian language, so it reflects from where it came, as for some people it is too confusing.

and, sorry, we just don't see that pattern, and even the earliest common stages of Baltic language have many grammatical, lexical and phonological characteristics that are only theirs or only shared with a few other IE branches, mainly Slavic and, much more seldom, Indo-Iranian and possibly Daco-Thracian.

How you are so sure about earliest stages of Baltic languages? Did you study them? Even Italic languages share at least some things with Baltic, just like ALL of IE language groups, if we come to that. However with Dacian-Thracian it is under question if these similarities were something more in the past - like to the proposals, like: were Dacian-Thracian Baltic?

 

[RajvoSa]

1. I did not test those.
2. According to that blog, it was ancient DNA(no idea - extracted from dead people? with the site names - it looks like so), so it is not about modern living DNA, which is different thing. It just established that R1a in it's earliest forms were present between Baltic and Black seas 5000+ years ago already. It also points out, that R1a originated in Europe and not in Iran, as current history teaches us. R1b were first ones who split off from R1. Where are the most ancient R1 samples is still open question - keeping in mind, that there also exists R2, which is most SE Asia - India etc.
3. N arrived in Europe(over Ural mountains) 2300+ years later than R1a appeared in Europe. Author of this topic was interested how to distinguish R1a in slavic and baltic, not N or I2, as that is completely different topic, and he should have made an different topic if he was interested in that. Or are you with mentioning N implying something very rude, same as author?

There is no need to explain or ask for Y-DNA difference between Balts and Slavs indeed. It's clear that among both, Lithuanians and Latvians, is presented somewhere about 40% N and 40% R1a. In genetical sense they are half Finno-Ugric and half Indo-European, while haplogroup N is not significant among Slavic-speaking populations (except Russians, but even they are half percent in comparison to Balts - 23%). But those are obvious facts and really there is no need to open such threads while it is obvious. More interesting is this topic.

 

[Dibran]

1. I did not test those.
2. According to that blog, it was ancient DNA(no idea - extracted from dead people? with the site names - it looks like so), so it is not about modern living DNA, which is different thing. It just established that R1a in it's earliest forms were present between Baltic and Black seas 5000+ years ago already. It also points out, that R1a originated in Europe and not in Iran, as current history teaches us. R1b were first ones who split off from R1. Where are the most ancient R1 samples is still open question - keeping in mind, that there also exists R2, which is most SE Asia - India etc.
3. N arrived in Europe(over Ural mountains) 2300+ years later than R1a appeared in Europe. Author of this topic was interested how to distinguish R1a in slavic and baltic, not N or I2, as that is completely different topic, and he should have made an different topic if he was interested in that. Or are you with mentioning N implying something very rude, same as author?

European clades of R1a originate in Europe. Earliest M420 samples, ancestor of all modern R1a is coming from Iran. So it would be incorrect to say R1a originated in Europe, as its not the same as further downstream subclades that fall under R1a1a specifically(which is from Europe). So the earliest ancestor M420 is coming from Iran.

 

[RajvoSa]

So, NO - we can't still consider Kiev culture as slavic - not in my dreams or even nightmares.

Kiev culture is widely considered as Slavic. There is almost no doubt about this fact. You're the first one "scientist" who thinks otherwise. Next your proclamation will be that Prague-Korchak culture is Germanic.

 

[RajvoSa]

Frankly, I'm done with this topic.

I've only recently found this link, and blog solves all the answers I wanted to find:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-beast-among-y-haplogroups.html

I had a further read in link:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/late-pie-ground-zero-now-obvious.html(it also contains other information, that might be interesting)

What it says, is that Baltic region(5800 years ago?) had already earliest R1a variants. R1a1 is R-SRY1532.2(https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/phylogenetic_trees_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1a) - it is ancestor of ALL discussed R1a variants. That also includes ancestors of M458, so I would abandon any ideas about Slavic as paralel development, as it is unsound. Since Slavic language(and language is the only thing that differ it from other groups) is very young development, it is most probably, that ancestors of R1a spoke either Baltic or proto-Baltic language(or whatever it means). The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European).


Note that M558 which is currently regarded as "Baltic" is present not only in Baltic region, but also exactly in the same mentioned places (from previous picture) of oldest samples of R1a and M417 and also Z93:

There is also very big problem of Baltic substratum in Balkans, that raises question if Thracian-Dacian and Illirian ancestors were originally speaking in Baltic language, which with more work in this area might be true. I've mentioned before, that modern Latvians and Lithuanians share teeth characteristics with people from Balkans - this is usually one of the answers to people in Latvia or Lithuania why they have bad teeth and prominent fangs and why I have urge to suck blood(ok, that is made up).

As for most of Slavic languages - main Slavic language spread happened in very recent times - with Church Slavonic. It made Slavic speaking not only Baltic and Finnish people, but also Greek and that is why we have now Slavic speaking Macedonians in FYMR(and why usage of Macedonian name is pain for Greeks, just as it was for Baltic people in the case of German Prussians), as their ancestors in Aleksander time certainly did not spoke Slavic, but Greek(if we regard ancient non-slavic Macedonian as Greek). Magyars in Panonia with R1a are not exception - people in Pannonia spoke Slavic(who replaced Avars) right before arrival of Magyars or whatever groups of people who settled in that region.


/Serg/ mentioned about similarities of Sanskrist and Slavic... well, actually some of his provided examples sound more modern Baltic than Slavic, but I assume, that he does not know Latvian or Lithuanian and want to judge about this topic purely with knowledge of russian and nothing more. Baltic forms are regarded as more archaical and Sanskrit contains them, but Slavic languages do not contain those forms, that were preserved in Sanskrit same way as they are preserved in Baltic. Besides - Sanskrit was long out of use and heavily changed(from classical, where those archaical forms are preserved) before Slavic emerged, so hardly Sanskrit could be regarded as something that formed Slavic and Slavic, as we established did not appear in 2000BC. So, what /Serg/ is citing is at best classical Sanskrit, which was also influenced by other Aryan languages. And btw - classical Sanskrit evolved from Aryam(Vedic Sanskrit) and that language evolved from Avestan, so we come full circle to Indo-Iranian languages, which influenced each other which were influenced by local languages - mainly Dravidian.

If Slavic languages contain any archaical forms, that can be regarded as Slavic(because they are not Germanic or Celtic), then they are also found in Baltic. It does not work around other way.

If Prussian would emerge from time capsule and spoke to modern Baltic speakers, they would regard it as Slavic without blinking an eye, because they are not really well in these linguistic topics(as I am). But, since Prussian is not Slavic, but is just a variation of Baltic, so are Slavic, who are not developed far from Baltic languages as are Germanic or Celtic. In linguistics we can at best speak about Slavic branch of Baltic languages, as dialect forms, that were between Slavic and Baltic languages have died out, but if they were still alive and in use, this would be no topic to discuss about. And I must mention again - modern Baltic languages appeared in Baltic region only 1500 years ago. If we strictly have to speak about Baltic languages as regional languages, then Baltic became extinct in 16th century when Prussian, Curonian and other local Baltic languages died out. Latvian and Lithuanian can be regarded as Russian and Belorussian, as these countries is where they came from originally.

The major problem is that people got confused with term "Balt". Real term for it is Balto-Slavic, since there was no any Slavs or Balts mentioned in any papers and sources, and there was just mass of people who even most probably didn't have self-awareness. One part of them left from this area and become known as Slavs, and other part stayed, preserved archaic features of language etc.. and was named later as Balts. The term "Balt" in scientific papers such as this map literally means: Balto-Slavs since those people were most probably common ancestors of both ethnicities and didn't have any name. So your claims as "Slavs were Balts" have no sense.