Talk:Baltic Finns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[Untitled][edit]

As a lay person with bad skills in english I will not try to edit this article, but one general remark must be made: If we want to make correct conclusions of the origin of the Baltic Finns, we should not disregard either the results of linguistic research or the results of genetic research. To claim that baltic finnic langues have been spoken in their current area in periods, when, according to the results of current linguistic research, they have not been spoken there, is thus doomed to be incorrect (at least if the linguistic research results won't chanche, which of course could be possible and has happened many times, but however at least now the results seem quite convincing, but of course they will be modified all the time and maybe also radically in some respect in some future stage). On the contrary then, such wiews should be found, that will not disregard either the results of genetic research, archaeological research, or the results of linguistic research or results in still other fields. And this, as far as I can see as a lay person, is excactly what has been tried to do in recent years by the younger generation of fennougrists, some of which are cited here, but not all. And because this recent research is cited in this article only randomly and not comprehensively, the overall picture in this article remains incomplete and partly misleading. If in some occassiopn I should have time, I could try to find some references but of course it would be better if this was done by someone who knows somewhat more about the subject. But the main message of this recent research, however, could be that populations may have changed there languages for several times. So it is well possible that there is continuity of settelement but the language has changed. --Urjanhai (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But luckily enough, the main arguments of the recent linguistic research and the criticism upon continuity theories have already been summarised in an other article: Proto-Uralic homeland hypotheses. The current view on the subject may of course change as well as it has done many times before, but at least also this article should be updatet at least to these results. And still there is much more reseach that has been carried out recently especially about the palaeo european substrate in uralic languaseges and saami laguages by for example Janne Saarikivi and Ante Aikio and also summarised by Jaakko Häkkinen in many occasions.--Urjanhai (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
And as Juha Janhunen has recently stated, there has been under the recent years a growing concensus on these issues among these younger scholars, on which he also agrees.--Urjanhai (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are Baltic Finns Curonians who later assimilated to Balts? --85.253.61.49 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, is really necessary to start this article from Mesolithic period? Mesolithic goes to archeology, we don't have any evidence about the linguistic affiliations of people living on middle stone age. 94.101.2.146 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)