Meta-ethnicity poll

[Menydh]

How good is this information here?

YouKnowMe - componentoption,com_awikiarticle,Finno-Ugric_peoplesview,mediawiki



And what's the relation with Turko-Ugric that I've seen mentioned in a few sites?

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by NatVox

How good is this information here?

YouKnowMe - componentoption,com_awikiarticle,Finno-Ugric_peoplesview,mediawiki

Basically correct, but somewhat messy and outdated (like wiki-information tends to be). There is no more need for a Uralic macrogroup comprising of Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages, since the speakers of the latter has been shown to be Paleo-Siberians who have changed their language quite recently. I've also never heard about Finno-Ugric peoples called Besermyan and Burtas, and when I open about the article about the latter, it states that their language was uncertain.

Originally Posted by Sergius

So you do not feel included in the Finno-Ugric group or you feel that it is imprecise (rather Finnic?)?

The term 'Finnic' seems to be also ill-defined. In research it is used synonymously with 'Baltic-Finnic', but elsewhere it's widely used for the whole western (non-Ugric) group of FU languages. Therefore I don't use it at all.

Originally Posted by NatVox

And what's the relation with Turko-Ugric that I've seen mentioned in a few sites?

If you mean the Ural-Altaic connection, that's a controversial topic among linguists. If the relation exists, it may even go as far back as Paleolithic. Additionally, you can find similarities with even Dravidic languages:



What I'm thinking is that it is the Indo-European that has been an exception among the traditional Eurasian language spectrum

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Kalevi

What I'm thinking is that it is the Indo-European that has been an exception among the traditional Eurasian language spectrum

Care to explain that?

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by NatVox

Care to explain that?

Simply that early Indo-European developed into a radically different direction away from the other groups.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Kalevi

The term 'Finnic' seems to be also ill-defined. In research it is used synonymously with 'Baltic-Finnic', but elsewhere it's widely used for the whole western (non-Ugric) group of FU languages. Therefore I don't use it at all.

How about Fennic?

[wilpuri]

Originally Posted by Sergius

So you do not feel included in the Finno-Ugric group or you feel that it is imprecise (rather Finnic?)?

Basically I see the surviving Baltic Finnish nations as my meta-ethnic kin. So that's basically Estonia.

Of course there is also a strong cultural affinity with the rest of the Nordic countries. It is also interesting to see that Estonia has been orientating itself towards the Nordic countries and 'marketing' itself as one. Culturally they definately belong, but due to historical & geographic/geopolitical reasons they've remained outside our little club.

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by Marulus

How about Fennic?

Same word with different spelling, I think.

[Ginnungagap]

I'm a tad mixed. Germanic, Celtic, and Finno-Ugric covers it all though.

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Kalevi

There is no more need for a Uralic macrogroup comprising of Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages, since the speakers of the latter has been shown to be Paleo-Siberians who have changed their language quite recently.

Do tell! Gumilyov at least mentions legends among them of aborigines who were shoved north. I forget the name now, began with S... Syyrta, or something?!?! Are we supposing some Ket related Yeniseyan language? Is there any substrate evidence for this?

I've also never heard about Finno-Ugric peoples called Besermyan

They seem to be relics of Volga Bulgaria. Their folk costume is supposedly near identical with that of the Chuvash.

and Burtas, and when I open about the article about the latter, it states that their language was uncertain.

Given their time and place, I don't think there's any other likely 'suspect' than Mordvin heritage.

Additionally, you can find similarities with even Dravidic languages:



What I'm thinking is that it is the Indo-European that has been an exception among the traditional Eurasian language spectrum

Success always breeds envy and ill-feeling...
There's a lot of dangerous chauvinism and romanticism about any classification of Sumerian or Hurrian and so on.
This scheme ignores the nonKartvelian Caucasian languages, and if they were there, then IE would have a place between them and FU.

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by Llywarch Hen

Do tell! Gumilyov at least mentions legends among them of aborigines who were shoved north. I forget the name now, began with S... Syyrta, or something?!?! Are we supposing some Ket related Yeniseyan language? Is there any substrate evidence for this?

I'm not aware of this in deeper detail, but Janos Pusztay has found a strong Paleosiberian substratum in Samoyedic languages. In addition their speakers are genetically heavily Asian, and the amount of European mtDNA they got has a very low diversity which suggests a recent contact.

The classic model of Uralic division doesn't seem to be justified either:

The existence of two introductory chapters, labelled “the Uralic languages” and “the Finno-Ugrian languages”, illustrates one af the most persistent myths in the field. In practically all textbooks, the standard claim is that the Uralic family is a union of two very distantly related groups of languages, called Finno-Ugrian and Samoyed. This claim is false. While it is true that the Samoyed branch is very independent, there is little or no evidence for the rest of Uralic as a unit in its own right. The standard view is originally based on the classification presented by Otto Donner, the founder of the Finno-Ugrian Society; he correctly dissolved the so-called “Ural-Altaic” unity established by the Finnish pioneer scholar M. Alexander Castrén, but by error, he went too far and also excluded the Samoyed languages from the family. This error was later remedied, but the Samoyed branch remained as “the first branch to have left the Uralic unity”.

The standard classification continues to split the “main” branch, i.e. Finno-Ugrian, into Finno-Permian and Ugrian, Finno-Permian further into Finno-Volgaic and Permian, Finno-Volgaic into “Early Proto-Finnic” (a most unhappy appellation) and Volgaic (Mordvin and Mari), and finally “Early Proto-Finnic” into Sámi and (“Late Proto”-)Finnic. This practice is also unfounded, and originally based on a nationalistic Finnish view which wanted to see the Finnish language literally as the highest sprig of the sacred family tree.

Rather than a result of recursive bifurcations with the Finnish language as its most highly developed representative, the Uralic family is a chain of seven, or more likely, nine, separate branches, which derive directly from Common Uralic. The hesitation about the exact number of primary branches is due to the fact that while Sámi, Finnic, Mordvin, Mari, Permian, and Samoyed are beyond doubt as historical linguistic entities, with a host of common innovations in each, the same is far from true about the alleged Ugrian branch, consisting of Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty.

Tapani Salminen - Facts and myths about Uralic studies (book review)

Originally Posted by Llywarch Hen

There's a lot of dangerous chauvinism and romanticism about any classification of Sumerian or Hurrian and so on.
This scheme ignores the nonKartvelian Caucasian languages, and if they were there, then IE would have a place between them and FU.

That's right. The chart is there to demonstrate what else has to be considered besides Ural-Altaic, if using the same criteria.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I would answer this thread, but the very concept of linguistic subgroups as meta-ethnicities is fallacious. Especially since linguistic subgroups may overlap or be uncertain and undetermined. When it comes to which specific language you are speaking now, it is no determinant of the way this thread interprets linguistic subgroups: as non-linguistic subgroups, but as determinants of origin and culture and ethnicity. Which is a fallacy, since that is nowhere near entirely true. Its a stereotypical generalization, and an unjustified extrapolation and misinterpretation of linguistics.

I've changed my opinion on this subject, I'm afraid, after being convinced that meta-ethnicties are indeed something more. I still have my own specific views, but I believe meta-ethnicities have always had a role in the relations between ethnic peoples and in their own make up.

[ArMakedon]

I voted slavic because of slavic language.