10-07-2023, 06:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2023, 06:37 AM by PopGenist82.)
(10-07-2023, 06:02 AM)Jaska Wrote: PopGenetist82:
Quote:“You did change the position of Samoyedic in the Tree, did you not ? This idea has not exactly taken off.”
I demonstrated that (1) lexical level is prone to several distorting processes, which diminish its value for taxonomic purposes (https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/85674/44638); (2) that the assumed Proto-Finno-Ugric sound changes seem implausible (https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/19684); (3) that Samoyedic shares sound changes with Ugric branches Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty (most recently https://www.academia.edu/103067313/An_ol...metal_name).
Recent view of Grünthal et al. 2022 is based on the absence of earlier than Late Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords in Samoyedic, and I agree that it seems highly improbable that all 14 words could have been later disappeared from Samoyedic. However, this cannot disprove the evidence in other levels of language, like the shared sound changes – we have to take into account all the evidence, not only part of it. These pieces of evidence are both nonsimultaneous and concern different levels of language. Therefore, I present in my forthcoming article a new, more precise model to account for all the valid relevant evidence: there will be several stages of disintegration between uniform Late Proto-Uralic and its daughter branches.
PopGenetist82:
Quote:“I'm content with the discussion to date, if we can call it that.”
Do you mean that you will not tell us on which question in Lang’s model you disagree and why? OK, it is your choice, then.
PopGenetist82:
Quote:“Anyhow, I suspect you came here to be told how amazing you are by Angles, instead he got a serving of me. So ill leave you all to it.”
You should never try to assess other people based on your own inner motivations; it usually goes all wrong. But I hope you will continue discussing here; although it would be nice if you gave more supporting arguments and evidence for your claims and accusations.
I don't have to describe linguistic methodology, because Im not a theoretical linguists. But I understand the principles, and have read widely the different persepctives on language families. I also have an excellent grasp of contact linguistics, perhaps better than most linguists.
When it comes to unfurling how people - which are ultimately the speakers of the languages you study - that is the role of anthropologist. Those in that pursuit are not re-inventing the wheel, merely attempting to acurately contextualise the how when and why.
Finally, to answer the same question for the fifth time - there was no Bronze Age Nordic migration to the East Baltic, but there was one from the Baltic to Scandinavia c. 2800 BC.
I'm sure Lang will accept that, I dont see why you should't either. (Otherwise I have no issues with the rest of his discussions)