World Families Forums - Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 28, 2014, 05:24:10 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?  (Read 6219 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2012, 08:30:52 AM »

Enough.

Can we just avoid each other? As I have said before, I don't have time for your style of debate, which I find tiresome as well as less than honest (which is a polite way of putting it).

Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2012, 11:18:53 PM »

... No sir, if you want to make the conclusion that you deem Anatole Klyosov who is a Biochemist, or Ken Nordtvedt who is a Physicist as more competent than me, it is up to you, but don’t assume I think the same. Your appeal to authority isn’t going to work with me.

.. and it shouldn't. However, I encourage you to directly engage with Nordtvedt, Klyosov and Chandler in discussions. They are available on various forums to do so. I have engaged with them and come to my own conclusions.

However, from what I see, you have not. Rather than disagree with them in absentia, please directly engage. It will give you more credibility if you do. Otherwise, you are a cymbal clanging in the wind.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2012, 11:19:36 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #52 on: June 30, 2012, 12:07:06 AM »

.. and it shouldn't. However, I encourage you to directly engage with Nordtvedt, Klyosov and Chandler in discussions. They are available on various forums to do so. I have engaged with them and come to my own conclusions.

Uhmm, I have engaged Klyosov before, perhaps you missed this:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/y-str-variance-of-busby-et-al-2011.html

See the comments. You want to know what the results where, Klyosov took half of my comments out of context, and “disprove” them in one of his Journals.

http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/Vestnik_4_09.pdf

Skip to page 152, and see the “rebuttal” by Anatole Klyosov. I will grant him something, back in August 2011 I wasn’t as well versed on computational biology as I am today, still, even back then I was already pointing to him the effects of mutation rate and TMRCA. Of course, as always, all he did was throw a cesspool of fallacies my way, and take a whole lot of my comments out of context. Why didn’t he continue engaging me over at Dienekes?

However, from what I see, you have not. Rather than disagree with them in absentia, please directly engage. It will give you more credibility if you do. Otherwise, you are a cymbal clanging in the wind.

Then you ought to read more, because I just showed to you that I have engaged Klyosov before. Also, if I’m not mistaken he is a member here, so he could sign in and defend his postulates. If what you want, is for me to sign up to rootsweb, well, I don’t plan to do that for now, because one forum is enough for me.

PS: I find myself agreeing a lot with what John Chandler is saying, so I see no reason to engage him.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 12:08:32 AM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2012, 12:55:10 AM »

Uhmm, I have engaged Klyosov before, perhaps you missed this:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/y-str-variance-of-busby-et-al-2011.html
Cool, I applaud you.  I find Dienekes' blog not very good for in depth conversations. This is not a commentary on Dienekes or the posters, just the formatting. Anyway, I don't follow all of his blog's follow-up postings.

PS: I find myself agreeing a lot with what John Chandler is saying, so I see no reason to engage him.

I agree with you. John Chandler seems to have a reasoned and conservative approach so I find little to disagree with him on....    well, that, and plus he obviously knows his math.

That is good, we find agreement on Chandler's credibility. Do you agree or disagree with Ken Nordtvedt?

I'll be very straight forward. I've read many of Chandler's and Nordtvedt's postings and looked through and tried to understand Nordtvedt's as best as I can.  I find Chandler and Nordtvedt very credible (as it relates to statistics in genetics), well beyond most of the posters here, including myself and yourself. I actually think Nordtvedt's use of statistics well beyond those of most genetic academic authors. In reality, this should not be a surprise.

This is not about titles, but Chandler and Nordtvedt have the backgrounds that we'd expect of people who make a lot of sense (at least in my opinion) in the field of science.

Klyosov is another story. I respect his intelligence and enjoy his willingness to be prognosticate, but beyond that I have no comment. I am definitely open to his hypotheses, though, as I am to yours. I am anxiously trying to understand Bell Beaker patterns in Iberia and SW France as well as elsewhere.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 01:30:04 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2012, 06:57:33 AM »

It sounds high-minded and oh so scientific to pretend to reject appeals to authority, but let's face it, in this field, most of us must rely on the authority of acknowledged experts, at least to some extent. It is laughable to say otherwise.

Whether it is citing Busby et al as if it were St. Augustine's City of God, Krahn's latest tentative additions to the R Tree, or ISOGG's updates, unless you are actually doing the work yourself, right down to the sampling, you must rely on the authority and trustworthiness of others.

The difference between the use of authority in genetic genealogy and its use in theology is that in the former authority is subject to criticism, review, and revision.

To say that Busby et al has been seriously criticized by experts who have found fault with it is not the same thing as asserting that their criticism is infallible, as if it were some form of theological authority. It is simply pointing out that Busby et al itself is not infallible.

Most of us here are not geneticists or archaeologists or anthropologists or linguists. So let's be honest: we all have to rely on those who are.

Many of these posts come down to the juxtaposition of this authority versus that. Don't pretend they don't.

Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2012, 12:31:01 PM »

Do you agree or disagree with Ken Nordtvedt?

Well that is a question that is hard to answer, in somethings I’m going to agree with him, in other maybe not. Likewise, I don’t disagree with everything Klyosov says, it is now an agree or disagree situation.

I'll be very straight forward. I've read many of Chandler's and Nordtvedt's postings and looked through and tried to understand Nordtvedt's as best as I can.  I find Chandler and Nordtvedt very credible (as it relates to statistics in genetics), well beyond most of the posters here, including myself and yourself. I actually think Nordtvedt's use of statistics well beyond those of most genetic academic authors. In reality, this should not be a surprise.

I admire Dr.Nordtvedt, but not because he is into the Genetics hobby now, but because of his great contributions to Physics, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect

However it doesn’t surprise me that he has such knowledge about statistics, I studied Mechanical Engineering, and when I started doing research in the Computational Biology field, I found myself having more knowledge about statistics and math in general than my peers with Biology or Biochemistry degrees.  My friends who are physicists are a complete different story, I mean I took a Modern Physics class, and I say without a doubt that the Bose-Einstein Statistics, the Fermi-Dirac Statistics, the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics are by far probably more complex than any statistics one could come across in Genetics, add to it the Schrodinger’s equation with its time dependence, three dimensions and in polar coordinates, and you got yourself something crazy. 

As for John Chandler, he seems to have gone to M.I.T, but I have no idea what his field is, or if he has a PhD, or a Masters or a Bachelors degree. To be sincere, to me if he only had a MSc, or a BSc I would equally respect the guy, there are a lot of people out there with PhD who are less qualified than people with lesser degrees. So if anyone knows anything about his background, I would appreciate it if they told, just as a curiosity thing.

This is not about titles, but Chandler and Nordtvedt have the backgrounds that we'd expect of people who make a lot of sense (at least in my opinion) in the field of science.
 


I come from a science background too, and like I said before often times concepts which are completely outside of the biological field apply. For example I relied a lot on Control theory when coming to the conclusions of the mutation rate effect on TMRCA.

PS: This doesn’t apply to you(Mikewww), but to those people who insist that since we are not geneticists, linguistics, anthropologists, etc, we must rely on the authority of those, perhaps they ought to know that neither Klyosov nor Nordtvedt are either one of those professions previously mentioned. Likewise, the Busby.et.al. study was published in a peer-reviewed Journal, meaning it had to be reviewed by fellow Scientists, in fact had their criticism of Balaresque.et.al been wrong, or anything in their methodology had been wrong, we would have already seen a reply by the Balaresque.et.al team defending or arguing for the points where they disagree, this is nothing new, and it happens every day in Science, however, the Balaresque.et.al team has said nothing about the Busby.et.al study.

Also the Busby.et.al study was done by a team of Scientists:


George B. J. Busby1, Francesca Brisighelli1,3,4, Paula Sanchez-Diz3, Eva Ramos-Luis3, Conrado Martinez-Cadenas1, Mark G. Thomas6, Daniel G. Bradley7, Leonor Gusmao8, Bruce Winney2, Walter Bodmer2, Marielle Vennemann9,10, Valentina Coia4,11, Francesca Scarnicci12, Sergio Tofanelli13, Giuseppe Vona14, Rafal Ploski15, Carla Vecchiotti5, Tatijana Zemunik16, Igor Rudan16,17, Sena Karachanak18, Draga Toncheva18, Paolo Anagnostou4,19, Gianmarco Ferri20, Cesare Rapone21, Tor Hervig22, Torolf Moen23, James F. Wilson17,24 and Cristian Capelli1,*


It is by far way more likely one would get an impartial study when more than one authors is involved in the research, than when solely one author or at best two do it. Mainly because in such a pool of people, I doubt everyone is going to have the exact same opinion, and this would likely lead to discussions and refinements of the hypotheses, and as it is known it is always good to have multiple hypotheses when analyzing the data, because then the hypothesis that fits best the results is the one chosen, instead of manipulating the data in an Ad Hoc approach to fit the sole hypothesis presented.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 12:36:01 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2012, 05:07:06 PM »

.... Likewise, the Busby.et.al. study was published in a peer-reviewed Journal, meaning it had to be reviewed by fellow Scientists, in fact had their criticism of Balaresque.et.al been wrong, or anything in their methodology had been wrong, we would have already seen a reply by the Balaresque.et.al team defending or arguing for the points where they disagree, this is nothing new, and it happens every day in Science, however, the Balaresque.et.al team has said nothing about the Busby.et.al study.

I don't we can assume that because we haven't seen a response out of one point of view yet means the other point of view was correct. My guess is these guys all have other things to do and it takes time to work up a worthwhile position paper. Let's hope they make only thoughtful responses, anyway. Busby's paper was just the latest round, not the last round.

I also don't think that just because something is peer reviewed that means it is correct in its conclusions either. Not in genetics, but in other disciplines, I've seen the academic process at work. It's nice, but hardly impressive to the point that I accept anything that comes out of it as great stuff. The process some times actually encourages "group think," which can be problematic.

Also the Busby.et.al study was done by a team of Scientists...
I think most of these studies, such as Myres, Balaresques, etc. were done by teams. I don't think there is particular advantage shown by one of these studies because of their teams. Do you think one team is better than the other? I
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 05:10:29 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2012, 08:19:49 PM »

I don't we can assume that because we haven't seen a response out of one point of view yet means the other point of view was correct. My guess is these guys all have other things to do and it takes time to work up a worthwhile position paper. Let's hope they make only thoughtful responses, anyway. Busby's paper was just the latest round, not the last round.

My point was that if the Balaresque.et.al team thought that Busby.et.al analysis of their work was erroneous, they would have defended it, likewise, if they found a hole in Busby.et.al logic they would have exposed it. Every day we see comments or responses published in the advance publication section of Journals, a response doesn’t take a lot of time, because one is not publishing something discovered, but commenting on already published data. I sure hope Busby.et.al isn’t the last round of R1b studies in Europe.

I also don't think that just because something is peer reviewed that means it is correct in its conclusions either. Not in genetics, but in other disciplines, I've seen the academic process at work. It's nice, but hardly impressive to the point that I accept anything that comes out of it as great stuff. The process some times actually encourages "group think," which can be problematic.

Well, it also depends where it gets published, the higher the impact factor of a Journal the harder it is to get published there. Nonetheless, yes, peer-review doesn’t equate correctness, but it is far more likely to get a impartial study through a peer-reviewing process than those published through the hobbyist community, likewise the peer review process encourages the usage of scientific standards for collecting data.


I think most of these studies, such as Myres, Balaresques, etc. were done by teams. I don't think there is particular advantage shown by one of these studies because of their teams. Do you think one team is better than the other? I

That comment was comparing Busby.et.al with the publications of Klyosov, who often times only publishes by himself, or him and another guy, so I was giving some general thoughts as to the relationship of doing research in group vs. doing research alone and the impartiality of a study.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 08:22:02 PM by JeanL » Logged
acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2012, 09:50:38 AM »

Gene deleted and or non functional  p36.13-p34.3

"The D antigen is inherited as one gene (RHD) (on the short arm of the first chromosome, p36.13-p34.3) "

Interesting quirky mutation found among the following groups and regions, Bannu, Uromia and Cacasus,  Basque, Berbers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15090322
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/20-4/Khattak.pdf
http://www.aina.org/articles/gdaicc.pdf

Uncommon mutation among African and Asian populations.
African descent    less 1%
Asian    less 1%


http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ancient-european-dna-using.html



Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2148


« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2012, 11:22:16 AM »

The book "Paleosardo, le radici linguistiche de la Sardegna neolítica" [by Blasco Ferrer] linking Paleo-Sardinian and Basque is too expensive

Perhaps it is enough to read this  writing of Massimo Pittau. Of course I don’t agree neither with him: tzarantzula  doesn’t presuppose an article agglutinated with the name, deriving from Italian “tarantola” (Pisan “terrantola”) for gecko. Other origin have, I think, the names with “thili-“.

L'articolo determinativo della lingua Sardiana o Protosarda Nell'ultimo numero della bella rivista olianese "Sardegna Mediterranea" (num. 9 dell'aprile 2001, pagg. 58-61), Eduardo Blasco Ferrer ha pubblicato un articolo intitolato "Zoonimi parentali e totemismo nella cultura paleosarda", nel quale egli presenta la sintesi essenziale di un ampio studio di circa 70 pagine che comparirà in una rivista internazionale di linguistica. In questa sua sintesi il Blasco Ferrer sostiene la tesi secondo cui ben 11 zoonimi sardi implicherebbero una notazione parentale espressa in funzione totemica, nel senso che sarebbero preceduti dall'appellativo thiu, tiu, tziu-a "zio-a" o a titolo di denominazione tabuistica o con accattivante prospettiva di cattura nella caccia.
I zoonimi parentali in questione sarebbero i seguenti: thilingròne "lombrico", tzarántzula "geco", tzurrundéddu "pipistrello", thilipírche "cavalletta", tzalacúca "gongilo", tzintzimurréddu "pipistrello", sitzigórru "lumaca", thulúrthis "biscia d'acqua", thurulía "poiana", thilibríu "gheppio", tzorrómpis "lucertola".
Ovviamente io attendo di leggere lo studio preannunziato dal Blasco, ma mi sento già in grado di intervenire sull'argomento dicendo di respingere con decisione quella tesi in quanto viene contraddetta da quattro grosse difficoltà di carattere linguistico.
1ª) Se la tesi del Blasco fosse esatta, riuscirebbe del tutto incomprensibile la circostanza che tra le numerosissime varianti di quegli zoonimi che esistono in Sardegna non compare mai una variante che porti intatto il primo componente thiu, tiu, tziu-a "zio-a". E tanto più risulterebbe inverosimile questa circostanza, in quanto il detto appellativo è di pieno ed amplissimo uso in tutta la Sardegna. Perché dunque non compaiono mai le varianti *thiu lingròne, *thiu lipirche, *tzia rántzula, ecc.?
2ª) L'usatissimo appellativo thiu, tiu, tziu-a "zio-a" è bisillabico e non diventa mai monosillabico, cioè non avviene che mai che perda la sua seconda sillaba. Pertanto in Sardegna non si dice mai *thi Predu "zio Pietro", né *tza Frantzisca, ecc., ma si dice solamente thiu Predu, tzia Frantzisca, ecc.
In un solo caso la vocale finale del nostro vocabolo può scomparire: quando viene eliminata per elisione di fronte ad una vocale seguente: thi' Antoni, tzi' Elías, ti' Onaníu "zio Antonio, zio Elia, zio Anania"; d'altra parte si dice solamente thia Elena, tzia Innássia, tia Usanna "zia Elena, zia Ignazia, zia Susanna", ecc.
3ª) Rispetto alla maggior parte degli zoonimi studiati dal Blasco non è affatto vero che i Sardi abbiano avuto ed abbiano un atteggiamento di timore né una aspirazione di caccia, e precisamente rispetto a thilingròne "lombrico", tzurrundéddu e tzintzimurréddu "pipistrello", sitzigórru "lumaca", thulúrthis "biscia d'acqua", thurulía "poiana", thilibríu "gheppio", tzorrómpis "lucertola".
4ª) E meno che mai si può ipotizzare un atteggiamento di timore oppure una aspirazione di cattura rispetto a questi altri appellativi che sono, anch'essi, caratterizzati dal prefisso ta-, te-, ti-, tu-; tha-, the-, thi-, thu-; tza-, tze-, tzi-, tzu-: nichele, taniqele "(il) coso"; tanda (< *t'anda) "papavero"; trocco (< *t'ocro) "argilla speciale"; t(h)únniu, tuntúnnu "fungo"; t(h)urru, tuttúrrihe "rivolo d'acqua".
Come ho già scritto nel mio libro Ulisse e Nausica in Sardegna (Nùoro, 1994, num. IV) e nel mio Dizionario della Lingua Sarda - fraseologico ed etimologico (Cagliari, 2000, Editore E. Gasperini, sigla DILS, passim) e come dirò meglio e più ampiamente nel mio libro di imminente pubblicazione La Lingua Sardiana o dei Protosardi (Cagliari, 2001, Editore E. Gasperini), il prefisso ta-, te-, ti-, tu-; tha-, the-, thi-, thu-; tza-, tze-, tzi-, tzu- non è altra cosa che un originario articolo determinativo protosardo agglutinato ad un certo numero di appellativi sardi, quasi tutti di matrice prelatina e protosarda o, come a me ormai piace precisare, di matrice "sardiana".
E finisco anche dicendo che alcune spiegazioni etimologiche che il Blasco Ferrer ha prospettato per il secondo componente dei su citati zoonimi lasciano parecchio da desiderare. Ad esempio, tidóri "colombaccio", deriva, come la variante tidone,-i, dal lat. *titone(m) (REW, DES e DILS) e non dal greco bizant. Theódorhos, il quale invece in sardo ha dato Diadóru. Ma anche su questo specifico argomento intendo ritornare quando leggerò l'ampio studio che il Blasco ha preannunziato.
Massimo Pittau

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2148


« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2012, 02:21:05 PM »

Perhaps I’ll read the book and hope that his theories are more reliable than that criticized by Massimo Pittau. About the migration from Iberia, probably could have happened also the other way around.

La ricerca sul primitivo sostrato della Sardegna ha coinvolto senza successo una legione di studiosi. Le tesi formulate finora si scontravano col carattere del tutto ermetico della toponomastica centrale dell'Isola, che restituiva strutture senza addentellati nelle lingue europee o extraeuropee confrontate. Il deficit principale degli approcci tradizionali consisteva nella mera ricerca casuale di omonimie tra forme, onomastiche e lessicali, sarde e di altre lingue a volte molto lontane.
L'autore, dopo anni di ricerca intensa nelle aree più arcaiche dell'Isola, ha sottoposto quasi un migliaio di microtoponimi, in larga parte conservati nella tradizione orale delle comunità montane, a una rigorosa analisi, derivandone poi una tipologia morfologica e fonologica del Paleosardo. I risultati così ottenuti hanno gettato luce sulla vera natura del sostrato paleosardo, ossia di una lingua di tipo “agglutinante”, che mostra palesi corrispondenze strutturali con le lingue paleoispaniche, in particolare col Paleobasco ricostruito e con l'Iberico.
 
Una rassegna di corrispondenze strutturali, semantiche e onomastiche condotta fra Paleosardo, Paleobasco e Iberico conduce inesorabilmente alla deduzione che il Paleosardo rappresenta l'esito di varie migrazioni paleoispaniche avvenute in età pre-neolitica e neolitica, con uno sviluppo autonomo e privo di ulteriori apporti fino all'età nuragica. Nell'indagine si mettono in evidenza per la prima volta le componenti stratificate del sostrato paleosardo pre-semitico, vale a dire una componente primaria paleobasca e iberica, più due componenti minori, una periindeuropea e una paleoindeuropea.


Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.098 seconds with 19 queries.