Lithuanian sounds like...

エヴァルダス
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-08-13, 15:53
Gender: male
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby エヴァルダス » 2016-02-24, 0:39

Sol Invictus wrote:No, but conclusions they drew from the data were incorrect.


If we put aside dating – which conclusions about common ancestry are incorrect?

it might as well result, for example, from languages in the same geographical region borrowing common words from the same foreign languages and each other.


The research data is freely accessible: http://ielex.mpi.nl/ If you believe their data were misleading or cognate judgement was massively incorrect, you can prove it by pinpointing the exact mistakes.

The research was supposed to exclude loanwors, according to current knowledge about all the languages studied. What constitutes a cognate was desided by trained linguists. As far as I can tell, the Lithuanian cognate data seems to be more or less correct.

Bear in mind that any research of this kind is based on assumptions and on our best current knowledge. If it is discovered that LV roka / LT ranka / PR rānka is a loanword from some language, then future research will have to reflect the new finding. But current research must be based on our current assumption that this is not a loanword.

that common ancestor for two groups that is significantly different from an earlier common ancestor of all three groups cannot be reconstructed


The trouble is that the reconstruction of the last common ancestor of one single node of just Latvian and Lituanian (that we assume existed till some 5th century AD) would not be significantly different from Balto-Slavic which could have existed millenia before. This is because we have a fixed set of data (no newly discovered sources). If you take a look at the list in Wikipedia, almost all the forms can be derived by comparison of just Latvian and Lithuanian (with a tiny bit of Prussian). This was basically the standard practice 20 years and before among Baltic linguists.

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2977
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Sol Invictus » 2016-02-24, 2:21

エヴァルダス wrote:If we put aside dating – which conclusions about common ancestry are incorrect?


From what I remember - clasifies Albania and Greek as one subfamily, clasifies Polish as Eastern Slavic, clasifies Romani as spliting from languages of India at earlier point than it did in reality and something was up with Romance languages as well.

EDIT: came accross another one of those videos - http://youtu.be/hrQ_vgfkxNg
I speak:  (lv) (en) I understand some:  (de) (ru) Toying with:  (es)

エヴァルダス
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-08-13, 15:53
Gender: male
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby エヴァルダス » 2016-02-24, 10:15

Sol Invictus wrote:From what I remember - clasifies Albania and Greek as one subfamily


I don’t think there is anything special about that. The deeper you look into history, the less precise can be your deductions. In books that I have read linguists postulate a possible common ancenstry (dialect continuum?) between Baltic, Slavonic and Germanic languages, or maybe (even longer ago) between Italic and Celtic.

clasifies Polish as Eastern Slavic, clasifies Romani as spliting from languages of India at earlier point than it did in reality and something was up with Romance languages as well.


You’re right, a single aspect of comparison (vocabulary in this case) means little by itself (but not nothing). We’d be unlucky if we could base our assumptions only on it. Luckily we have other data, nicely presented in this article about the long history of debates concerning Balto-Slavic hypothesis. The current concensus is that all Baltic languages developed separately from Slavonic languages and did not branch off at the same time, as the new theory would suggest.

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2977
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Sol Invictus » 2016-02-24, 11:20

Okay, fine, all I was saying was that example you were using seems bougus. If Balto-Slavic split in two or three doesn't really matter for the point I was making that Lithuanian evolved from it, instead of being antique Aryan or whatever
I speak:  (lv) (en) I understand some:  (de) (ru) Toying with:  (es)

Varaleiva
Posts: 119
Joined: 2014-05-08, 18:40
Gender: male
Country: LT Lithuania (Lietuva)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Varaleiva » 2016-03-15, 8:28

Most people are afraid of their own nation's history, it's too emotional for them. Such people distance themselves from the past feelings of the nation's history of striking out everything there is any smell like "romance" and "heroism", and other values of the ancient world. Which most of them are taboo in modern Christian culture.
Modern Christian culture assigns the old values to the world of fairy tales, SCFI world.
"Balts", "Indo-Europeans", "Corded ware", "Kurgan culture“ or "Pontic culture" a good example of hiding from reality.
In this way, the linguistic facts never linked to archeology, anthropology and history of the nation.

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2977
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Sol Invictus » 2016-03-15, 12:38

That's called science, not fear. You can't claim that all your ancestors up to dawn of humanity were Lithuanian, because they probably were part of cultures and spoke languages very different from modern Lithuanian and many other cultures and languages had the same ancestors. There are, of course, people who say that you shouldn't acknowledge your ancestry at all and your nation's history begins with the day it gained independence, which in my opinion is exaggeration, however you seem to be going to the opposite extreme here.

Also Kurgan hypothesis is an example of linking linguistics with archeology - it claims that certain archeological finds in certain place were left by certain people that must have spoken certain language and on top of it a Lithuanian came up with it, so any anti-Lithuanian political motivation seems dubious
I speak:  (lv) (en) I understand some:  (de) (ru) Toying with:  (es)

Varaleiva
Posts: 119
Joined: 2014-05-08, 18:40
Gender: male
Country: LT Lithuania (Lietuva)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Varaleiva » 2016-03-15, 17:16

Take yourself and check out all the available scientific evidence. Well, if you're not afraid to question the dogmas of modern science, which nowadays is very politicized and completely bought.
The fact is: Indo-Europeans is fiction. There was no Indo-Europeans.

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2977
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Sol Invictus » 2016-03-15, 22:27

Such as what? I have read plenty about these things and have never seen any scientifically backed claims that Indo-European languages don't exist. Unless you are refering to dated scientific research from times when "Aryan" was used to refer to Proto-Indo-European, in which case it's just a matter of terminology - we don't know what pre-historic people who spoke this hypothetical ancestral language might have called themselves.
I speak:  (lv) (en) I understand some:  (de) (ru) Toying with:  (es)

uzferry

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby uzferry » 2016-03-16, 6:26

Varaleiva, you know, we're still waiting (at least I am) for your verified sources regarding this topic. Until then, what you're saying just looks like bunch of groundless tinfoil talk without any basis whatsoever.

Varaleiva
Posts: 119
Joined: 2014-05-08, 18:40
Gender: male
Country: LT Lithuania (Lietuva)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Varaleiva » 2016-03-16, 6:48

The fact that Indo-european theory is fiction not my idea. But,
I done the research, and convinced myself, that is true. Check the facts yourself, no other way for convincing you. If you can not distinguish between someone statements and real facts, I am sorry, I can not help you.

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2977
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Sol Invictus » 2016-03-16, 8:03

Yes, you can help us - give us sources for those facts we need to check to arrive to same conclusions as you have
I speak:  (lv) (en) I understand some:  (de) (ru) Toying with:  (es)

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6025
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Levike » 2016-03-16, 8:05

Varaleiva wrote:Check the facts yourself, no other way for convincing you. If you can not distinguish between someone statements and real facts, I am sorry, I can not help you.

You're just saying "it's true because it's true and that's how it is" which is not an argument.

Give some sources at least to show us what we're missing.
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

Varaleiva
Posts: 119
Joined: 2014-05-08, 18:40
Gender: male
Country: LT Lithuania (Lietuva)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Varaleiva » 2016-03-16, 9:27

Freely available data are adequate. Critically review them. You only need to separate opinions from facts. It can make anyone able and willing to think independently...

On the other hand, I can ask you to provide evidence that the Indo-Europeans theory is based on real facts, not someone speculation.

This is one of the weak points of this theory:
no such evidence has never been produced.

It is also the theory ploy (skipping one word in its name):
it is impossible to disprove the theory that has no basis in fact, just a bunch of opinions.
I have nothing against the Indo-European hypothesis. But I categorically disagree examine Indo-European theory as scientific fact, because it has never been proven.

If someone do not believe in what I'm writing here, try here made out what the facts prove the Indo-Europeans theory certainty, and soon you will find that these "facts" are mere someones assumptions and opinions.

Varaleiva
Posts: 119
Joined: 2014-05-08, 18:40
Gender: male
Country: LT Lithuania (Lietuva)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Varaleiva » 2016-03-16, 10:01

OK... I start.

1. There was no such defined nation as the Indo-Europeans who spoke defined Indo-European language (it does not matter how you call it) in the defined geographic area and defined time frame in history.

– Prove the contrary. Otherwise, there is nothing here to talk about.

...Simply speaking, you must answer the questions:
who? where? when? and how?

It is obvious that these are the main issues. Therefore, the language can not exist without it carriers.

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2977
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Sol Invictus » 2016-03-16, 14:05

Varaleiva wrote:Freely available data are adequate. Critically review them. You only need to separate opinions from facts. It can make anyone able and willing to think independently...


You seem to be saying that you'll disregard facts as opinions to suit your own beliefs

Varaleiva wrote:OK... I start.

1. There was no such defined nation as the Indo-Europeans who spoke defined Indo-European language (it does not matter how you call it) in the defined geographic area and defined time frame in history.

– Prove the contrary. Otherwise, there is nothing here to talk about.

...Simply speaking, you must answer the questions:
who? where? when? and how?

It is obvious that these are the main issues. Therefore, the language can not exist without it carriers.


The Kurgan hypothesis addresses this
I speak:  (lv) (en) I understand some:  (de) (ru) Toying with:  (es)

Varaleiva
Posts: 119
Joined: 2014-05-08, 18:40
Gender: male
Country: LT Lithuania (Lietuva)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Varaleiva » 2016-03-16, 16:15

Please, provide facts, not hypotheses.

"...Simply speaking, you must answer the questions:
who? where? when? and how?"

uzferry

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby uzferry » 2016-03-16, 17:46

What "facts" do you expect? Some kind of ancient tablet with "Hey, Indoeuropeans were here!" written on it? Blood test and DNR samples with word "INDOEUROPEAN" encoded in them?
I mean, there are barely any facts in early history altogether, only implications and theories based on our findings and interpretations of these findings. And while I'm not advanced enough to give you any documentation regarding this topic, I'll prefer to believe in widely acclaimed hypotheses (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses) that probably make more sense until you prove me they are wrong.

Now, according to these hypotheses:

Kurgan hypothesis

Who - The people of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BC had expanded throughout the Pontic-Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe.
Where - Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia
When - from ca. 4000 to 1000 BCE
How - expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BCE

So basically - "PIE was first spoken by pastoral herders who lived in the vast steppe lands north of the Black Sea beginning about 6000 years ago. One study points out that these steppe land herders have left their genetic mark on most Europeans living today." (from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/mysterious-indo-european-homeland-may-have-been-steppes-ukraine-and-russia)

Now please show me what's wrong with this kind of thinking. The article above also provides the means of research and its findings that were used to support the theory. Again, I'm not a professional in genetics/linguistic/history etc., I can only present some articles and stuff :)

Varaleiva
Posts: 119
Joined: 2014-05-08, 18:40
Gender: male
Country: LT Lithuania (Lietuva)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Varaleiva » 2016-03-16, 22:19

"What "facts" do you expect?"
– Scientific facts-proof. Of course. Here are you are trying to defend a scientific theory. Or someone insights?

" Some kind of ancient tablet with "Hey, Indoeuropeans were here!" written on it?"
– As noted earlier "(it does not matter how you call it)", the nation's name is not important at this moment. Although history knows it.

"Blood test and DNR samples with word "INDOEUROPEAN" encoded in them?"
– As noted earlier "(it does not matter how you call it), Genetic and anthropological data are ones of the facts-proof. They are necessary.

"I mean, there are barely any facts in early history altogether, only implications and theories based on our findings and interpretations of these findings."
– In other words. You really do not know what evidence there is. But you are confident that the Indo-Europen theory is derived from the all possible "evidence". This is a very ensures...

" And while I'm not advanced enough to give you any documentation regarding this topic, I'll prefer to believe in widely acclaimed hypotheses (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Ind ... hypotheses) that probably make more sense until you prove me they are wrong."
– You believe? – I am not. Science requires facts, not beliefs. Oddly enough, that you are offering me to read the work in which you yourself did not find a single fact capable of proving the Indo-european theory. Otherwise, you had to submit such facts here.

"Kurgan hypothesis"
– The hypothesis is not a fact.

"Who - The people of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BC had expanded throughout the Pontic-Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe.
Where - Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia
When - from ca. 4000 to 1000 BCE
How - expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BCE"

– Here it is more akin to the scientific evidence. Say, all this is based on archaeological, anthropological, genetic, ethnological, geographical and historical facts that can be retrieved. But, what is the relationship with Indo-European theory here?

"So basically - "PIE was first spoken by pastoral herders who lived in the vast steppe lands north of the Black Sea beginning about 6000 years ago. One study points out that these steppe land herders have left their genetic mark on most Europeans living today." (from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/ ... and-russia)"
– So basically – The bold statement. None of evidence.

"Now please show me what's wrong with this kind of thinking."
– Believing is not thinking.

"The article above also provides the means of research and its findings that were used to support the theory. Again, I'm not a professional in genetics/linguistic/history etc., I can only present some articles and stuff"
– Oh yes! Somewhere there is a very intelligent and learned men, who know everything correctly... But this is, again, not evidence.

uzferry

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby uzferry » 2016-03-16, 22:56

You know what? I'm out. We're not getting anywhere by this :/
I gave you a few articles with sources that explicitly describe scientific methods used to gather the evidence and the assumptions derived from them. You just deny it all and continue saying that I'm wrong and I'm not providing you solid facts. What's your point? Believe whatever you want :)

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2977
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Lithuanian sounds like...

Postby Sol Invictus » 2016-03-17, 0:53

Varaleiva wrote:"What "facts" do you expect?"
– Scientific facts-proof. Of course. Here are you are trying to defend a scientific theory. Or someone insights?

What's a fact for you? So far you've been simply denying everything, because it isn't good enough for some unspecified reasons

" Some kind of ancient tablet with "Hey, Indoeuropeans were here!" written on it?"
– As noted earlier "(it does not matter how you call it)", the nation's name is not important at this moment. Although history knows it.

History knows what?

"Blood test and DNR samples with word "INDOEUROPEAN" encoded in them?"
– As noted earlier "(it does not matter how you call it), Genetic and anthropological data are ones of the facts-proof. They are necessary

If you admit that genetic evidence is valid why do you keep claiming that there are no facts backing up the theory?

an, there are barely any facts in early history altogether, only implications and theories based on our findings and interpretations of these findings."[/i]
– In other words. You really do not know what evidence there is. But you are confident that the Indo-Europen theory is derived from the all possible "evidence". This is a very ensures...

It's just that evidence is scant and it's pretty hard to check what really happened without a time machine. It should be obvious to anyone that when you have no writen evidence, just archeological finds it becomes much harder to draw conclusions. You however seem to be adamant that there is solid evidence for something else, if only you would present it to us, so we can become enlightened as well...

" And while I'm not advanced enough to give you any documentation regarding this topic, I'll prefer to believe in widely acclaimed hypotheses (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Ind ... hypotheses) that probably make more sense until you prove me they are wrong."
– You believe? – I am not. Science requires facts, not beliefs. Oddly enough, that you are offering me to read the work in which you yourself did not find a single fact capable of proving the Indo-european theory. Otherwise, you had to submit such facts here.

That your best argument is attacking word choice suggests to me that you acctualy don't have anything to back up your own claims

"Kurgan hypothesis"
– The hypothesis is not a fact.

Except currently facts suggest that it's the best possible explanation

"Who - The people of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BC had expanded throughout the Pontic-Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe.
Where - Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia
When - from ca. 4000 to 1000 BCE
How - expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BCE"

– Here it is more akin to the scientific evidence. Say, all this is based on archaeological, anthropological, genetic, ethnological, geographical and historical facts that can be retrieved. But, what is the relationship with Indo-European theory here?


It provides explanation where, when and by whom the ancestral language was spoken. Perhaps you should acctualy learn what you're talking about before denying it?
"So basically - "PIE was first spoken by pastoral herders who lived in the vast steppe lands north of the Black Sea beginning about 6000 years ago. One study points out that these steppe land herders have left their genetic mark on most Europeans living today." (from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/ ... and-russia)"
– So basically – The bold statement. None of evidence.

"Now please show me what's wrong with this kind of thinking."
– Believing is not thinking.

"The article above also provides the means of research and its findings that were used to support the theory. Again, I'm not a professional in genetics/linguistic/history etc., I can only present some articles and stuff"
– Oh yes! Somewhere there is a very intelligent and learned men, who know everything correctly... But this is, again, not evidence.


Again - you're just spliting hairs, attacking words and not providing any evidence yourself
I speak:  (lv) (en) I understand some:  (de) (ru) Toying with:  (es)


Return to “Lithuanian (Lietuvių kalba)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest