Re: Language tree rooted in Asia-Minor

"WolfWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Agamemnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Diarmid Logan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/031124/031124-6.html
> > >
> > > Language tree rooted in Turkey
> > >
> > > Evolutionary ideas give farmers credit for Indo-European tongues.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > The Kurgan might not be out of the picture entirely, says McMahon -
> > > they may have triggered a later wave of languages. "This isn't going
> > > to knock the debate on the head," she says.
> >
> > Who are these people trying to fool. There were NO SUCH people as the
> > Kurgans.
>
> LIAR!!!
> "The Kurgan people were an Indo-European culture existing during the
fifth, fourth,
> and third millennia BC; they lived in northern Europe, from Russia across
Germany, and
> various authorities have mounted a case for them being THE
proto-Indo-European
> culture, from which all Indo-European cultures descend. Other researchers
think it
> likely that later-day Kurgans were the "Sea People" who laid waste to the
Holy Land
> around 1200 BC - traveling south along the Mediterranean in ships, with
their women

YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

With names like Ekwesh (Achaeans), Danja (Danians), Pelast (Pelasgains) and
Sped (Spartans) it is bloody obvious that the Sea Peoples were GREEKS.

> following them in wagons along the shore. The word kurgan means barrow or
grave in
> Slavic and Turkic; Kurgan culture is characterized by pit-graves or
barrows, a
> particular method of burial. They are also called the Pit-grave people, or
Barrow
> people."
> http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Kurgans.htm

So you admit that Kurgan is a MADE UP WORD just like Klingon and that it is
not even indo-European since the Turkic languages are members of the ALTAIC
group. Further more your assertion backs up what I have already stated in
that the Slavs were not even Europeans but Asiatics whose language is
derived from the same root as Altaic and then merged with the indigenous
European language which was derived from Greek and Hittite as the Nature
article asserts.

>
> > >
> > > Biology and linguistics can learn a lot from each other, comments
> > > geneticist David Searls of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, based in
> > > King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. "There may be some fundamental
> > > principles of evolution of complex systems, such as languages and
> > > organisms," he says.
> >
> > Biology dictates that there have to be 2 completely unrelated
fundamental
> > Indo-European languages that split from Phoenician and Altaic-Chinese
80,000
> > years ago and then merged again 10,000 years ago since Germanic,
Anatolian
> > and Phoenician people are descended directly from the M89 linage whereas
> > Altaics, Chinese, Iberians, and Celts are all descended from M9 which
> > mutated from M89 80,000 years ago. There is not a trace of Germanic DNA
in
> > Iberia or Southern Italy which are both populated primarily by
descendents
> > of the M9 lineage and the only M89 derivative in Russia is the Germanic
> > lineage M170.
> >
> > The only way a credible linguistic theory can be constructed is by
removing
> > all Greek cognates from Latin and treating what is left as an Asiatic
> > language.
> >
> > The only thing the above research proves is that Greek, Hittite,
Armenian,
> > Persian and Germanic derived from a common ancestor. It does not prove a
> > link with either Latin or and Slavic languages which both need to have
split
> > from a common Asiatic  root 17,000 years ago somewhere in the Ukraine.
> >
> > Funnily enough the name Indo-European is apt since it implies a merging
of
> > an Asiatic langue with a European one but the current
Proto-Indo-European
> > theory is completely wrong as this research clearly shows.
>
> SHEER POPPYCOCK!!!!
> The common Proto-Indo-European root is not a theory but an IRREFUTABLE
fact.

BULLSHIT. The Proto-Indo-European theory was DISCREDITED by the lack
Archaeological evidence over 100 years ago. DNA research over the past
decade has completely DEMOLISHED the theory.

All the elements in Slavic languages which resemble other European languages
were introduced by Germanic colonisation and this means that the Germanic,
Greek and Hittite languages split from Phoenician 80,000 years ago and were
introduced to Europe 10,000 years ago with the first farmers. The Slavs did
not set foot in Europe until 600 AD and like the Hungarians who are of the
same M17 DNA linage originally spoke and Altaic like all the other M17
lineages of central Asia. Latin was also a language that split form the
Altaic-Chinese-Native-American super group since M17 is a derivative of M173
which evolved 17,000 years ago and original M173 evolved from M45 the same
lineage as the Native Americans 30,000 years ago.

>
> GET AN EDUCATION, BUFFOON!!!

GET A BRAIN YOU IGNORAMUS.

The mistake that every linguist has been making for the past 2 centuries is
in treating the Italo-Celtic languages as part of the same group as the
Greco-Hittite-Iranian languages that evolved at the same time. DNA research
and archaeology proves that this is IMPOSSIBLE both because of geography and
because of the time that elapsed between the evolution of the specific DNA
lineages. Greco-Hittite-Iranian evolved from the same root as Akkadian.
Italo-Celtic have the same root as Altaic and Chinese and in order to study
them properly they must be STRIPPED of ALL GREEK COGNATES. Because of its
mixture with Slavic German cannot form a basis for the study of the origins
of any Europeans languages nor can Sanskrit for the same reasons. Greek and
Hittite are the only basis for study and since very few Hittite words
survive Greek must be place at the centre of study.

>
> WolfWolf
> The European
>