Uralic = Turkish/Tartarian/Mongol

They could be related because the Uralic race is able to drink Milk like the Aryan, unlike the Han (Chinese)  and other Eastern Asians can not drink Milk.

I read somewhere that a several thousands years old Mumy was found in NW-China where Uralics like Uigurs live, and the death body had read hairs.

Even the "language families" theory is highly dubious by itself, never mind an "uber-language family" that ties most (if not all) of the known language families together.

Anthropological data, though, seem to imply that we all come from a common ancestor (yes, the one from Ethiopia) so, at a very, very, very distant point in time there was an universal "language" of sorts (maybe it was merely above snorting and "grrrr-ing" though) and then different groups of people found different ways to communicate with each other.

Easteners can't drink milk? Never heard of that... only milk or all dairy products? And what means "can't drink milk", they don't like it or can't digest it or something?

...Most Chinese adults do not drink milk because they can not fully digest it. The Chinese, and others who cannot digest milk sugar (lactose), do not have a lactase enzyme. All babies (including Chinese, of course) have the enzyme until they are about three years old; after which they gradually lose the ability to manufacture the enzyme...

http://www.quintron-usa.com/Genetics.htm - http://www.quintron-usa.com/Genetics.htm

Yes, but if order in families and wich languages belongs to a family is still disputed. For example in other Maps was Estnian, Finanian and Hungarian belongs  to the Mongol/Tartarian/Turkish languages.

http://media.maps101.com/SUB/WORLD_THEMATIC/worldlang.gif - http://media.maps101.com/SUB/WORLD_THEMATIC/worldlang.gif http://www.zompist.com/Langmaps.html -

"Yes, but if order in families and wich languages belongs to a family is still disputed. For example in other Maps was Estnian, Finanian and Hungarian belongs  to the Mongol/Tartarian/Turkish languages."

Well when my ancestors arrived where we live today, they were similar looking to modern Mongols. Then they mixed with the next immigrants. It could be quite realistic that a few words could be similar to even modern Turkish or Mongol ones.

About estonian - it belongs to the finno-ugrian languagegroup of the Uralic languagefamily. The Uralic family only consists of two groups - the finnougrian and samoyed

The finnougrian group in turn composes subgroups - sámi languages, Balto-Finnish languages (including Estonian and Finnish), Volgafinnish, Permian, and Ugrian languages (including hungarian)

The idea that the western finnougrians were mongoloid is a myth honed by german and scandinavian racists in the early 20th century. Sure many finnougrian people have features incommon with northern asians (including myself who have somewhat slant eyes and broad, high cheekbones) but there are no evidences of that they originated from Asia

Actually, I think it's the other way around. Having ALL humans speak the same languages requires a high level of organisation and could not stretch over like a whole continent, especially not in those times. And of course isolated groups could never come up with the same language! I'd say small groups of people that worked together (on hunting for instance) developed languages, and it wasn't until the time of the real 'civilizations' that things got standardized and larger groups of people spoke the same uniform language. Then, a part of one such group would've entered europe and broke up in different languages again as they settled in different places. I don't know much about the actual history on this, but i this would be a good logical explaination to me.

However, the ability to use language must have arisen somewhere first, have a main source (i don't think it would first appear in multiple places at once) so in that sense you'd be right, there could be a single ancestral language. However, this must be pretty far back, and the relationship between the branches must have become highly insignificant by now. It's now like relating a fly to an elephant - common ancestor influence must be zero percent by now.

Every Central Asian do not look like Mongolian. They may speak same language group but this doesn't mean that they are racially the same people. Western Altaic language speakers who live in west such as Turks, ancient Bulgars, Azeris, Turks of Caucasia, Tartars, Bashkirts, Chuvashs, Cumans etc. and Uralic people have caucosoid features. They were much less mixed with Mongols while they were moving towards west. But they were not Mongols. 

Speaking a same language group doesn't mean that both people are the same. If you think so it means that you are also claiming that Indians, Pakistanis, Persians are the same with Germans.

I wish I could be Mongol. But I am not and western Uralic-Altaic speakers are not so either.    

People, some of us are forgetting that belonging to the same racial stock doesn't mean that they are of the same linguistical stock.

On the Uralic-Altaic hyphothesis: It is somewhat questionable, although the Uralic and Altaic languages share a lot of common traits, for example agglutination (a lot of suffixes and almost no prefixes), vowel harmony (for example o and ö can't be in the same word) and the lack of grammatical gender (in German der/das/die). Even basic vocabulary is shared, proto-Uralic *keele proto-Altaic *khäälä. This theory however isn't so sure, because it is thought that even the three branches of Altaic are language families of their own.

To Brosnjo: That map does show the Uralic languages in a brown blotch (which in my opinion is very coarse). And its Turkic/Tungus/Mongol languages .

The Ö occurs in the Germanian Languages, but not in Slavian nor romanian or celtic, they could have it from the Altaic or so.

Yes I would say that same Values count more then the Race. Nearly all Races are mixed together, look at the history. Yes the Language of Finns and estonians is from Uralic or Mongolic but they have more Genetical and Cultural from Wikings/Germanians, then the Steppes peoble.

All Humans are Equal, but I prefer Aryan girls for me they have the pretiest Faces, and good Bodies, but West Africans have also not so bad bodies.

Some of people claims Finns, and Estons are central asia origined people who live north-east europea. They claim, Uralic language is an last affixed language like Turkish, Tatar..

As a Crimean Tatar origined person, i NEVER think Finns, Estons or Modern Hungarians are related Turks. Finns and Estons look like Skandinavians, and they usually have dolicocephal (long) skull-type. i think they are actually teutonic origined, maybe their language changed during Mogol raids. i also don't think Mogols are also Turkic origined cause they look like more chinese or south asians, and their language were changed old strong Turk Empires before Islam religion..

Turkic people, such as Kazaks, Uzbekhs, Azerbaijan people, Kirgiz, Turkmens and Tatars usually have brakicephal skull type.

I met several Hungarians, who looked like real Mongols.

@Finns, did you have a blue ass as you were babies or did you had blue eyes.

AFAIK Turks have blue asses and Aryans blue eyes.

Physical appearance has nothing to do with linguistics.

Most likely highly untrue. The Balto-Finnic populations are clearly European in genetic make-up, no different from other Europeans. The language may have come from the east, but even that is questionable. The 'science' of linguistics, especially of Finno-Ugric linguistics, has a long tradition of prejudice and false conclusions. Forget this mongol talk.

If possible, try to obtain a copy of Kalevi Wiik's newest book. His theories are rather 'wild', yet thought arousing.

Finns come from the Urals, we're linguistically far relatives to samoyed peoples, and in one book there was a photo of a finn family that lived 19th century, and they all had mongoloid eyes...Finns moved to Finland as the glaciers retreated...but about those mongoloid eyes-i think they have disappeared during centuries or even millenias that swedish and russians have mixed with Finns as they have moved to area. Lots of Germans have also moved to Finland during the Medieval period (my family was a merchant-family in germany that moved to Finland in the late medieval-period) and have mixed with Finns. Perhaps those mongoloid eyes are a feature that......disappears when a mongoloid-eyed person has a children with a person that hasn't...there was a research that claimed that blonde hair was a such feature and there wouldn't be any blondes after few centuries,but another research proved that not to be true, but on that I base(?damn my English!) my guess.

Finno-ugric languages are relatives to samoyed languages, and both groups belong to Uralic languages-group. Finnish, Estonian, Karelian(really Finnish but because spoken mostly in Russia it's sometimes considered to be a separate language), Hungarian, Lappish(/samean, dunno how to write that either),inkeroinen,mordva, mari,komi,votjakki,ostjakki(these are in Finnish and don't even try to translate these) are finno-ugric languages, and spoken in  eastern baltic areas, Hungary and in central Russia(west of Urals though)

(From my Finnish book

Layers(damn!again!) of Finnish words from different times:

1.Uralic words words that appear(and again!) in both finno-ugric and samoyed languages

2.Finno-ugric words that can't be found in samoyed languages

3.Indo-uralic words that may be loaned from indo-eropean pre-language

4.Baltic loans from 2500-2000 BC

5.Older Germanic loans from bronze age 1500-500 BC

6.Younger Germanic loans (Scandinavic) 50-400 AD

7.Slavic loans 500-1000 AD

8.Swedish loans

9.19th century russian loans

10.loans from greek and latin(philosophy and such words)

11.English loans from modern age

A newer theory, formulated during the 1990´s, says that during the Ice Age the ancestors of the Finns lived at one of the three habitable areas of southern Europe, so called refugias. The two other habitable areas were home for Indo-European and the Basque languages. According to this theory the Fenno-Ugrics spread to the north as ice melted. They populated central and northern Europe, while Basques populated western Europe. Later the Indo-European language speakers presented agriculture to their neughbouring hunter-gatherers. While the Fenno-Ugric and Basque hunter-gatherers learned how to cultivate land they also learned the culture and the language of cultivators, so they became Indo-Europeans. Soon these new Indo-Europeans had population growth caused by agriculture, and they moved to new areas and Indoeuropeanized the local hunter-gatherers, and so on. This is how Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages were born. Finns were not Indo-Europeanized because of their isolated location, and this explains why their language is not related but genes are closely related with Indo-Europeans of central Europe. However, this theory is not accepted by the majority of researchers. It is not easily disproved with archaeological evidence, but many linguistical scientists consider it impossible.

The genetic research points out that the Finns are most related with the Germanic language speakers. According to a wide genetic research the closest group to the Finns are suprisingly the Germanic Flemings of Belgium. It is also remarkable that the similarity is in genes that inherit only from female to female. This suggests that they had common ancestress, probably in the same the late Ice Age refugia. However, the genetic similarity does not necessarily prove that a common language ever existed, or that the common language would have been a Fenno-Ugric one. The Fenno-Ugrian language may have developed and spread only after the Ice Age.

Well, Estonians (or their semi-ancestors atleast) have certainly been Mongol looking, but were mixed by the next culture that immigrated here, Venekirves kultuur, who were more European looking and during time, the quite modern looking Estonians evolved onto the current area of Estonia.

It is just too bad that most other Finno-Ugric ethnicities other than the Finns, Estonians and Hungarians are being consumed by Russian language and culture.

Well, in my history book, i have two pics, one of a man from venekirves culture, and the other from the kammkeraamika culture, the kammkeraamika guy was all Mongoloid looking and the later immigrated venekirves culture guy was quite European looking.

I will revise my history book to see what i can get on the cultures.

I've been thinking about something like that myself.. it's simplified though (of course it is, and it should be, because it's a model ), we dont have the þ in Dutch and other modern Germanic languages often lack the x in return. I think there are many subrules to this, like

Other Germanic -> Dutch

sk --------------> sx

ju ---------------> ie

So I think by saying k should be x in germanic in that general list is a little bit too much into (Dutch) detail. It's an interesting little list though

"What, kalevipoeg? Your book has photos of sculptures dating to meso/neolithic times found in Estonia? And the sculptures depict asian looking people? Hm?"

No, they are plaster reconstructions, logically. And what is the amazemnet at the earlier one being Asian looking. The Finns had beaty little eyes in their earlier years and so did Estonians as they were from Asia, logical. Did you think Finns and Estonians came to their current locations with their big blue eyes and white hair???

But Estonians came from Asia or the south (by one of the two big rivers in Ukraine, Dnepr or the other one). And weren't they not Asian looking if they had lived there for thousands of years, it is biological and due to the climate.

Where did the Finns and Estonians come from then... hatched out of an egg in their current heartlands with their current looks???

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Originally posted by Teup Other Germanic -> Dutch sk --------------> sx So the English word scar is schaar in Dutch, and skill is schil

well, ok, it doesn't work for English

I'll add a collumn:

Oth.Ger.   Dutch    English

      sk     sx ('sch')   S ('sh')

skjut - schiet - shoot

it's in that direction also, sk is the oldest form, that one is likely to be assimilated into sx (so you can keep on making fricative noise), and the x in several germanic languages is, in turn, likely to turn S, under influence of even lazier people, like the Englishmen . The pronounciation of München is a good example of the latter (although it's not precisely a x originally).

Well I'll wrap up here.. I was just in a phonetics mood today

"Dutch is the closest relative of English. The Frisian language, spoken in the Dutch province of Friesland and very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English" ---http://www.phrasebase.com/languages/index.php?cat=60

Some sites are really, really full of crap

in whatever case, the statement from that site is wrong, read it closely

However, I think Swedish is way closer to Engish than Dutch is. In word order, cognate resemblance, as well as syntax. It's usually fifty-fifty: topicalisations are for instance the Dutch way, relative clauses are the English way.

As a matter of fact, they are more Germanic, but we are talking about vocabulary here. The "language" is also spoken in England, by the name of the Geordie dialect. The Lowland Scots and Geordie are actually the same dialect, so you can't basically count Lowland Scots as a language. The dialect derives from the Northumbrian dialect of Old English (=Anglo-Saxon). When the Danes created the Danelaw, the area left north of it was populated by Anglo-Saxons speaking Northumbrian, and so keeping the language intact. Thus, it is the closest "language" to Standard English.