Re: Uralic Continuity Theory (was: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white peo

Noahism somehow sprang out of my subconsciousness. I may know why.

There is an absurd debate over Swedish toponyms in Finland triggered
by a pseudoscientific monography. In that connection one scholar
reminded us that in the sixties one amateur argued in a series of
articles that many of the toponyms on the west coast of Finland are
from the time before the great flood. I think one of the publications
on that subject was named: "Av Noaks stam. En ortnamnsundersökning"
(From the Seed of Noah. A Study on Toponyms).

Without naming any particular opponent on this forum I must say that
some of the argumentation regarding Proto-Uralic 10.000 years back
remind me immediately of this type of science.

I think the moderator should rule out speculation on 'Sino-Tibeto-
Uralic' -type of constructions, which does not even involve Proto-
Indo-European, which is the subject of the forum. I think I saw a
rule against discussion of Nostratic in the rules of the forum.

I will write this suggestion concretely in another chain.

Jouppe
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
> Is Noahism actually a recognized term?
>
> If you just coined it, it is rather clever.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:02 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Uralic Continuity Theory (was: Meaning of

Aryan: now,

> "white people"?)
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@> wrote:
> >
> > I am surprised this Paleolithic Ural continuity stuff is still
> > discussed out here. Somewhere on cybalist I read a claim that it
> > would have gained ground 'in all uralic speaking countries' (can't
> > find that quote now).
> >
> > As for Finland nobody as I am aware of seriously discusses this

any

> > more, at least not among linguists. It was som 5 years ago that

this

> > was a hot subject. Petri Kallio has now on the contrary made a

good

> > case for bringing Proto-Uralic slightly closer to present by one
> > millenium or so,
> >

http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/kallio1_2006.

> > html based mainly on Indo-Aryan loanword evidence.
> >
> > It is really useless 'Noahism' to speculate what languages were
> > spoken 10.000 years ago.
> >
> > Jouppe
>
> And it is very scientific to speculate what languages were spoken
> 10,000-4,000 years ago?
>
> M. Kelkar
>
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"

<fournet.arnaud@>

> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
> > <fournet.arnaud@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [I'm allowing this through as a discussion of the Uralic
> > Continuity
> > > Theory', not as a discussion of AIT/OIT, which has been

reclosed.

> > > I've therefore taken the liberty of changing the subject

title. -

> > > Richard.]
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_Continuity_Theory
> > >
> > > "The theory questions the validity of the chronology for the

many

> > > Uralic loanwords from the contiguous Indo-European and Turkic
> > languages."
> > >
> > > M. Kelkar
> > >
> >
>