Popgenist82:
Depends what do you mean by “randomly.” Every migration had its reasons, but we cannot always find these. Every migration always concerns language, because people talk. But which language and with which result (bringing to new region only loanwords or totally new language or neither), we cannot see from DNA.
Popgenist82:
I only told you that you cannot randomly choose a language for every migration. You must check if the migration matches any linguistic results concerning time, place, and direction of expansion. You surely can understand this? Then, if you still disagree, feel free to present arguments why you do disagree.
Popgenist82:
You talked about Lang’s model, so I assumed you knew that there were several different groups in the East Baltic Region. As I said, the Stone Cist graves arrived there from Sweden. Do you understand and accept this?
Popgenist82:
I did not talk about them.
Popgenist82:
You misunderstood what Lang actually wrote. He is not claiming that all people in East Baltic Region were Germanic speakers, only those found in the Stone Cist graves in Coastal Estonia (all of the males R1a; see Saag et al. 2019). These graves were also made in Southwest Finland and they are a part of cultural horizon related to Nordic Bronze Age culture.
If you try to disprove someone’s view, you should first know what that person’s opinion really is and what it is based on.
Popgenist82:
So, what is the actual methodology in your population approach? To me it still seems that you just decide arbitrarily that Germanic language must be connected to certain population movement. Where is the evidence you base your decision on?
The scientific method is:
1. We take the linguistic results as the starting point.
2. We look if there is a match in genetic or archaeological data, concerning time, place, and direction of expansion.
3. If there is a match, good: we can then preliminarily connect certain language to certain genetic or cultural expansion in that particular time and place (although this connection is not automatically true for other times or places).
4. If there is no match, we must reject the assumed connection and keep on searching.
Quote:“You seem to think migrations were just happening willy-nilly and randomly as the wind blows. But they were not, and happened in specific times, often associated with broader climactic events and cultural changes. These are ripe conditions for language change.”
Depends what do you mean by “randomly.” Every migration had its reasons, but we cannot always find these. Every migration always concerns language, because people talk. But which language and with which result (bringing to new region only loanwords or totally new language or neither), we cannot see from DNA.
Popgenist82:
Quote:“You make these objections based on nothing. It would be more economical for you to garner a basic understanding of what the data shows”
I only told you that you cannot randomly choose a language for every migration. You must check if the migration matches any linguistic results concerning time, place, and direction of expansion. You surely can understand this? Then, if you still disagree, feel free to present arguments why you do disagree.
Popgenist82:
Quote:“Haha no, Balto-Slavic was not spoken in Bronze Age Sweden.
I really would have thought that every enthusiast studying the region would be aware that the BA East Baltic groups, according to present state of evidence, were not Scandinavians. it has been discussed in forums and detailed in publications for several years now.”
You talked about Lang’s model, so I assumed you knew that there were several different groups in the East Baltic Region. As I said, the Stone Cist graves arrived there from Sweden. Do you understand and accept this?
Popgenist82:
Quote:“This is easily demonstrable by the fact that the individuals from Bronze Age Latvia have ancestry from gained from Narva culture or other such HG-rich groups. They do not derive from Sweden or Scandinavia.”
I did not talk about them.
Popgenist82:
Quote:“So Lang's theory for that specifci aspect is not supported by data. A competent and honest scholar with assimilate the evidence and move with it.”
You misunderstood what Lang actually wrote. He is not claiming that all people in East Baltic Region were Germanic speakers, only those found in the Stone Cist graves in Coastal Estonia (all of the males R1a; see Saag et al. 2019). These graves were also made in Southwest Finland and they are a part of cultural horizon related to Nordic Bronze Age culture.
If you try to disprove someone’s view, you should first know what that person’s opinion really is and what it is based on.
Popgenist82:
Quote:“In considering glottogenesis using a 'population approach', there are two phases :
A) the formation phase : the embryonic brewing, mixing and assimilating of tribes which would eventually coalsece into a future coherent group
B) the expansion phase: successful and widespread languages must have had a mechanism to enact their expansion., usually entailing at least some migration”
So, what is the actual methodology in your population approach? To me it still seems that you just decide arbitrarily that Germanic language must be connected to certain population movement. Where is the evidence you base your decision on?
The scientific method is:
1. We take the linguistic results as the starting point.
2. We look if there is a match in genetic or archaeological data, concerning time, place, and direction of expansion.
3. If there is a match, good: we can then preliminarily connect certain language to certain genetic or cultural expansion in that particular time and place (although this connection is not automatically true for other times or places).
4. If there is no match, we must reject the assumed connection and keep on searching.
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)