Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Seeing language from the DNA
#61
Rodoorn:
Quote:But taken the other way around take with regard to a prehistoric language- in casu LPU- 'take the linguistic results' as 'a starting point' is also problematic. Because what are 'linguistic results' in this respect? We have no single evidence where and when a prehistoric language has been spoken.
That's contradictio in terminis, because when we know where and when a prehistoric language has been spoken it fails to be prehistoric it has become historic!
So with regard to prehistoric language we only have assumptions. And assumptions are not factual.

Historic does not equal 'known'. (1) Historic = there are written sources; (2) prehistoric = before written sources. Therefore Proto-Uralic is naturally a prehistoric language, but still there is a lot we can know about it. I suggest you read about the evidence first, and only after that comment the topic:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910
Gortaleen, JMcB, jdean And 3 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#62
^^ Rodoorn, Kale. This is completely nihilistic, and destructive to the scientific method. As such, we could claim that the existence of the electron (or any other elementary particle) is unprovable on the sole basis of the fact that this particle cannot be seen (whatever the magnification, moreover), that we cannot get our hands on it, etc. We can multiply the examples endlessly. Today the best minds on the planet work day and night on superstring theories, while the energy levels inherent in these theories make any direct experimental validation by definition impossible. I know some of these great minds. I wonder how they would react if I told them they weren't doing scientific work.
rmstevens2, Manofthehour, JonikW And 3 others like this post
MyHeritage:
North and West European 55.8%
English 28.5%
Baltic 11.5%
Finnish 4.2%
GENETIC GROUPS Scotland (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)

Papertrail (4 generations): Normandy, Orkney, Bergum, Emden, Oulu
Reply
#63
(02-11-2024, 05:38 PM)Kale Wrote: Seems a bit nihilistic for my taste... such as why not go half a step further and say there's no 'real' evidence anybody spoke until audio recordings?
Of course it's speculative, such is life, we just have to settle for the most logical speculations because there are simply things we cannot know for certain.

No, on the contrary, a source is an anchor.

Assumptions are not anchored.

Speculation is empty. So yeah what's more nihilistic.
Reply
#64
(02-11-2024, 05:43 PM)Jaska Wrote: Rodoorn:
Quote:But taken the other way around take with regard to a prehistoric language- in casu LPU- 'take the linguistic results' as 'a starting point' is also problematic. Because what are 'linguistic results' in this respect? We have no single evidence where and when a prehistoric language has been spoken.
That's contradictio in terminis, because when we know where and when a prehistoric language has been spoken it fails to be prehistoric it has become historic!
So with regard to prehistoric language we only have assumptions. And assumptions are not factual.

Historic does not equal 'known'. (1) Historic = there are written sources; (2) prehistoric = before written sources. Therefore Proto-Uralic is naturally a prehistoric language, but still there is a lot we can know about it. I suggest you read about the evidence first, and only after that comment the topic:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910

Historically is with a known source. In the case of a language the source is from inscriptions to books, tapes etc.

Proto-Uralic is never recorded and knows no sources.

So you can't place it in time and area. Simple as that.

Sources are basic in this respect. Without a source placing a language in time and space stays assumptive. That assumption can be wrong or right. But because we have no source to prove it (in the case of proto Uralic)we don't know if this is right or wrong....

In fact that is a nihilistic position Wink
Reply
#65
(02-11-2024, 05:50 PM)Anglesqueville Wrote: Today the best minds on the planet work day and night on superstring theories, while the energy levels inherent in these theories make any direct experimental validation by definition impossible.

I'm afraid these superstring theories are useless to pinpoint proto- Uralic in time and space.....
Reply
#66
(02-11-2024, 05:41 PM)jdean Wrote: And as if by magic and entire discipline disappears in a puff of smoke, poof : )

This is of course what motivates these positions. It is in no way a question of initiating an in-depth reflection on the question of scientificity. It is simply a matter of driving historical linguistics out of the field of investigation. Poof, just like you write. I find this frankly hilarious coming from a guy who has constantly promoted a book (Euler, "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung") which claims to precisely identify the Proto-Germanic area.
rmstevens2, Manofthehour, jdean And 3 others like this post
MyHeritage:
North and West European 55.8%
English 28.5%
Baltic 11.5%
Finnish 4.2%
GENETIC GROUPS Scotland (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)

Papertrail (4 generations): Normandy, Orkney, Bergum, Emden, Oulu
Reply
#67
(02-11-2024, 10:55 PM)Anglesqueville Wrote:
(02-11-2024, 05:41 PM)jdean Wrote: And as if by magic and entire discipline disappears in a puff of smoke, poof : )

This is of course what motivates these positions. It is in no way a question of initiating an in-depth reflection on the question of scientificity. It is simply a matter of driving historical linguistics out of the field of investigation. Poof, just like you write. I find this frankly hilarious coming from a guy who has constantly promoted a book (Euler, "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung") which claims to precisely identify the Proto-Germanic area.

Backed up with eye witness accounts no doubt ?
Rodoorn, Anglesqueville, Manofthehour And 1 others like this post
Reply
#68
Rodoorn:
Quote:Proto-Uralic is never recorded and knows no sources.
So you can't place it in time and area. Simple as that.

You do not know what you are talking about. Please read the link I gave - there is no point for you to repeat your ignorant views, when you could easily acquire information about the topic. It is up to you, whether you want to be a troll or discuss rationally and scientifically.
jdean, Anglesqueville, rmstevens2 And 1 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#69
(02-11-2024, 10:55 PM)Anglesqueville Wrote:
(02-11-2024, 05:41 PM)jdean Wrote: And as if by magic and entire discipline disappears in a puff of smoke, poof : )

This is of course what motivates these positions. It is in no way a question of initiating an in-depth reflection on the question of scientificity. It is simply a matter of driving historical linguistics out of the field of investigation. Poof, just like you write. I find this frankly hilarious coming from a guy who has constantly promoted a book (Euler, "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung") which claims to precisely identify the Proto-Germanic area.

You convinced me: let's concentrate our minds on receiving the proto Uralic (or proto Germanic) energetic vibes! Wink
Reply
#70
(02-12-2024, 12:42 AM)Jaska Wrote: Rodoorn:
Quote:Proto-Uralic is never recorded and knows no sources.
So you can't place it in time and area. Simple as that.

You do not know what you are talking about. Please read the link I gave - there is no point for you to repeat your ignorant views, when you could easily acquire information about the topic. It is up to you, whether you want to be a troll or discuss rationally and scientifically.

Yes you provided a link.....thanks. But did it gave answers.... Do we have proto-Uralic sources? Was proto-Uralic recorded?
In this respect you provided me an invalid link.....
Reply
#71
(02-11-2024, 11:23 PM)jdean Wrote:
(02-11-2024, 10:55 PM)Anglesqueville Wrote:
(02-11-2024, 05:41 PM)jdean Wrote: And as if by magic and entire discipline disappears in a puff of smoke, poof : )

This is of course what motivates these positions. It is in no way a question of initiating an in-depth reflection on the question of scientificity. It is simply a matter of driving historical linguistics out of the field of investigation. Poof, just like you write. I find this frankly hilarious coming from a guy who has constantly promoted a book (Euler, "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung") which claims to precisely identify the Proto-Germanic area.

Backed up with eye witness accounts no doubt ?

There is always a solution to that jdean: if we ain't got a eye witness we fake one Wink
Reply
#72
Rodoorn:
Quote:Do we have proto-Uralic sources? Was proto-Uralic recorded?

You have a very serious misunderstanding there. Please, try hard to understand what I write here:

1. We do not need written sources or sound recordings to date and locate a language.
2. Written sources or sound recordings do not automatically date or locate a language.
3. Concerning dating or locating a language, reconstructed (proto)languages are equal to literally attested languages.
4. Dating and locating a language is done similarly, irrespective of whether or not there are written sources or sound recordings from language. First comes the linguistic analysis leading to relative chronology (or location), and then follows the anchoring to absolute chronology (or location) achieved by methods of natural sciences.
Ambiorix, Queequeg, rmstevens2 And 4 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#73
(02-12-2024, 09:49 AM)Jaska Wrote: Rodoorn:
Quote:Do we have proto-Uralic sources? Was proto-Uralic recorded?

You have a very serious misunderstanding there. Please, try hard to understand what I write here:

1. We do not need written sources or sound recordings to date and locate a language.
2. Written sources or sound recordings do not automatically date or locate a language.
3. Concerning dating or locating a language, reconstructed (proto)languages are equal to literally attested languages.
4. Dating and locating a language is done similarly, irrespective of whether or not there are written sources or sound recordings from language. First comes the linguistic analysis leading to relative chronology (or location), and then follows the anchoring to absolute chronology (or location) achieved by methods of natural sciences.

Yes indeed we disagree. But that doesn't mean:
a. you are per definition right, which implicates "please, try hard to understand" or "misunderstand". I can understand and at the same time disagree. How much space is there to disagree with you?
b. I'm honest in what I state so no need or urge to troll, so that label doesn't fit and rather disturbs a good discussion imo.

That said with regard to your points:
1. You can make an attempt to date and locate a language, nevertheless without sources it is a speculative assumption nothing more nothing less.
2. No not automatically but a written source or sound recording makes it easier and most of all  'grounded', it provides evidence.
3. Proto languages are indeed a reconstruction (based on later on languages!) and therefore probably not spoken anywhere and anytime in this way. That is a difference with real existing languages. That is crucial in pinpointing a language in time and place.
4. First you have an assumption an that assumption can be underlined with sources or not. With sources it can be anchored. An absolute chronology or location achieved by methods of natural sciences needs some explanation for me, what is the contribution of it?

Thanks in advance!
ronin92 likes this post
Reply
#74
(02-12-2024, 12:17 PM)Rodoorn Wrote: Yes indeed we disagree. But that doesn't mean:
a. you are per definition right, which implicates "please, try hard to understand" or "misunderstand". I can understand and at the same time disagree. How much space is there to disagree with you?

but you aren't really arguing with Jaska, you are arguing against an entire discipline that stretches back into the 18th C.

Historical linguistics
rmstevens2, Jaska, Rodoorn And 3 others like this post
Reply
#75
(02-12-2024, 01:15 PM)jdean Wrote:
(02-12-2024, 12:17 PM)Rodoorn Wrote: Yes indeed we disagree. But that doesn't mean:
a. you are per definition right, which implicates "please, try hard to understand" or "misunderstand". I can understand and at the same time disagree. How much space is there to disagree with you?

but you aren't really arguing with Jaska, you are arguing against an entire discipline that stretches back into the 18th C.

Historical linguistics

Ok you make it a bit over the top jdean....

It are just some observations of a humble historian.

Admitted that branche is already somewhat older Wink
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)