Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RightWhale
I don't know, but I heard that Finnish and possibly Hungarian [Magyar] are related to Basque.

I had never heard of a connection between the Uralic languages (Finnish and Magyar), and the Basques. We Finns arrived in Europe at the end of the period before Christ, and our Magyar cousins arrived about 1000 years later (slothful, right). I had thought that there was evidence that the Basques had been around in their vicinity so long that some people think that they might actually be Cro-Magnon man!!

This is a fascinating subject, since the whole question of ethnic relationships and decent had become quite un-PC due to the bad uses it had been put to by those who confounded the linguistic term 'Indo-European', with the ethnic term 'Aryan'. For decades after the Nazis, any mention of ethnic, or blood, relationships were a very strict no-no, so that you could say that linguistic affinity, say between Germans and Hindus, was not evidence of a blood relationship. This genetic evidence is forcing this question to become again discussible in polite society. Expect BIG TROUBLE about this from the same people who think that genetics have no effect on behavior. (They think it isn't important, but that you must not talk about it.)

61 posted on 12/06/2001 7:24:54 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
I had never heard of a connection between the Uralic languages (Finnish and Magyar), and the Basques

I don't know. Probably there is none. Probably the one who told me this is no linguist either.

72 posted on 12/06/2001 8:16:56 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
WEll, one can discuss these things in a civilised manner and generally most of the folks on these posts (like blam, Sunkenciv) etc. treat it as a scientific discourse. There are a few nuts who tried to link these topics to some weird racial theories that debase the entire discussion, but thankfully most of them have been chucked out.

I think we can treat this in a civilised manner -- just because person A's ancestors were part of a civilisation formed in say 3000 B.C., doesn't mean he/she is better than person B whose ancestors moved out of the stone age only in the 10th century.
223 posted on 09/14/2004 2:59:28 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson