https://www.pirkanblogit.fi/2019/risto-koivula/onko-historiasta-loydetty-uusi-suomalais-ugrilainen-kieli/

Onko historiasta löydetty uusi suomalais-ugrilainen kieli?

Kyseessä olisivat muinaiset veneetit. Näin väittää kanadanvirolainen Anders Pääbo, joka on tutkinut ennen ajanlaskun alkua Adrianmeren rannalla ja myös Baltian ranni- kolla asuneiden tuon nimisten kansojen perintönä jääneitä roomalaisia tekstejä ja paikannimistöä ja lainosanoja molemmilla alueilla.

Italian kansat rautakaudella. Huom! Latinalaisten aika vaatimaton siivu faliskien ja umbri(alaist)en välissä. Lisäksi Rooma ei tuolloin kuulunut heidän ydinalueeseensa, vaan se oli (ensimmäinen?) heidän perustamansa colonia pohjoisesta etelään johta- vien (hevos)karavaanikauppateiden ja rannikolta sisämaahan Tiber-jokea johtavien merikauppareittien risteyksessä. Rooma kappasi kuitenkin muiden heimojen avulla vallan emämaaltaan ja tasavaltalaisen Rooman valtion valtiomuoto luotiin luotiin näi-den heimojen hallintokompromissin tuloksena. Latium tarkoittaa tasaista, latteaa maata erotukseksi vuoristosta. Pääkaupunki oli ensin samaa tarkoittava Lavinium.

Kaikki harmaan sävyillä merkityt kansat ovat latinalaisten läheisiä kielisukulaisia. Saappaanvarren alueet muodostavat heimoliiton. Rooman, hyvän asiakkaan (?) pus-siin pelasivat aina myös sicelit ja veneetit. Kun joku ulkopuolinen yritti niitä Roomaa vastaan usuttaa kuten esimerkiksi Hannibal molempia, seurauksena oli juonittelijalle katastrofaalinen operaatio.

Latinalaiset tunsivat tarut Troijan sodasta ja väittivät kuninkaansa Aeneiaan osallis-tuneen siihen (Troijan puolella,ei siis Kreikan).Nimi Rooma tulee kantaindoeuroopan ”(ylä)virtaa” (ja erityisesti paikka jossa ylävirran kosket muuttuvat rauhalliseski joeksi) tarkoittavasta sanasta  ”*s-rem-”, josta tulee mm. – yllätys – suomen Rauma, liettuan sraumė̃ , latvian  straume  = hidas virta, srūti (srū̃va, srùvo), vanh.  *s-remti > *srauti (srauna, srovė).

Etruskin kielessä on tosin sana ruma = pieni,vähäpätöinen,mutta Rooma ei ollut tuo- ta ennen edes ruma tai vähäpätöinen, vaan se oli syntynyt vain tuon ajan uusien tek-nologioiden pohjalta.Liivissä on muuten myös viroon jälkimmäisessä merkityksessä lainattu sana ”rumali”,joka tarkoittaa roomalaista ja kauheata ahmattia suursyömäriä, jollaisia roomalaiset taatusti bileissä olivat silloin, kun muutkin kuten vieraat saattoi-vat päästä heitä näkemään. Heidän, sanotaan katurahvaan (populus) ja orjien täysin arkipäiväinen hengissäpysymisruokansa jossakin sisämaan kaupungissa kuten Roomassa oli nimittäin niin huonoa ja pahaa ja vaarallistakin, että sitä syötiin mah-dollisimman vähän ja harvoin:”keskitysleiriruokaa” kuten pilaantunutta kalaa ja bileis- tä yli jäänyttä lihanroiketta, ruohoa, juuria, jauhonkyrsää, joiden maku häivytettiin ha-pansilakan (hapanmakrillin) liemellä, joka on siedätettävä aine,joka sitten, kun siihen on bakteerikanta tottunut, pitää aisoissa vaihtelevammat pöpöt.Tällaisia ruukkuja täynnä ollut laivanhylkykin on löydetty. Liha ei pysy kuumassa ilmanalassa suolattunakaan kunnossa: muutenhan mereen kuolleet elukat eivät mätänisi…

Etymology of the ethnonym Veneti

The ethnonym would then be etymologically related to words as Latin venus, -eris ’love, passion,grace’ and in later forms ’beloved, friendly’; Sanskrit vanas- ’lust, zest’, vani- ’wish, desire’; Old Irish fine (< Proto-Celtic *wenjā) ’kinship, kinfolk, alliance, tribe, family’; Old Norse vinr, Old Saxon, Old High German wini,Old Frisian, Old Eng- lish wine ’friend’,  [3]Norwegian venn ’friend’. The name ”Wends” was a historical de-signation for Slavs living near Germanic settlement areas. Also,the word wend meant water in the Baltic Old Prussian language suggests that the Wends were those who lived by the water or waters. [4] In the Esto- nian and Finnish names for Russia — Venemaa and Venäjä — possibly originate from the name of the Veneti. [5][6]

According to the 20th century linguist Julius Pokorný, the ethnonym Venetī (singular *Venetos) is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *wenh₁-, ’to strive; to wish for, to love’. As shown by the comparative material, the Germanic languages may have had two terms of different origin: Old High German Winida ’Wende’ points to Pre-Ger-manic *wenh₁étos, while Lat.-Germ. Venedi (as attested in Tacitus) and Old English Winedas ’Wends’ call for Pre-Germanic *wénh₁etos.

Venus on latinaa ja tarkoittaa veneettinaista.Se sai jumallattaren hahmon kreikkalais- ten Afroditelta, kun roomaliset sotilaat ja muut kyllästyivät kotilieden jumalattareen Vestaan, joka symboloi erilaisen tavaran keräämistä kotiin (ja ”istui aarteensa päällä” …). Vestan ruuista jo olikin puhetta. Sen sijaan Venus näytti ainakin taiteessa aina käristävän hiekkarannalla jotakin peuranpyllyä tai keittelevän jotain mereneläviä ja sekoittelevan viiniä  vähissä vaatteissa.

Bretagnen venetit: Veneti (Gaul)

Bretagnen etelärannalla asustanut purjehtijaheimo venetit, joita roomalaiset pitivät keltteinä (vaikka eivät erottaneet esimerkiksi germaaneja ja kelttejäkään, erottelu perustui enempi paikkaan kuin kulttuuriin) liittoutui Gallian sodassa 76 e.a.a. Julius Caesarin kanssa, mutta Caesar petti heidät.


Map of the Gallic people of modern Britanny :

Venetit keskellä sinivihreällä.

Näiden venettien spesiaaliala oli pronssin valmistuksessa tarvittavan tinan kauppa, jota he toivat Britannian Cornwallin kaivoksista. Miten tämä tina lähti satamasta eteenpäin ja minne? Näistä tunnetaan merenkulkupuoli, koska Caesar on sitä kuvannut, mutta heidän kolikossaan laukkaavat hevoset.

Nimi Anglia on muuten preussia ja tarkoittaa ”Hiilimaata”, lt. anglis , lv. uogle = hiili.

The Veneti were a seafaring Celtic people who lived in the Brittany peninsula (France), which in Roman times formed part of an area called Armorica. They gave their name to the modern city of Vannes.

Other ancient Celtic peoples historically attested in Armorica include the Redones, Curiosolitae, Osismii, Esubii and Namnetes.

The Veneti inhabited southern Armorica,along the Morbihan bay. They built their strongholds on coastal eminences, which were islands when the tide was in, and peninsulas when the tide was out. Their most notable city, and probably their capital, was Darioritum (now known as Gwened in Breton or Vannes in French), mentioned in Ptolemy’s Geography.

The Veneti built their ships of oak with large transoms fixed by iron nails of a thumb’s thickness.They navigated and powered their ships through the use of leather sails. This made their ships strong, sturdy and structurally sound, capable of withstanding the harsh conditions of the Atlantic.

Judging by Caesar’s Bello Gallico the Veneti evidently had close relations with Bronze Age Britain; he describes how the Veneti sail to Britain. [1] They controlled the tin trade from mining in Cornwall and Devon. [2] Caesar mentioned that they summoned military assistance from that island during the war of 56 BC. [3]

Julius Caesar’s victories in the Gallic Wars, completed by 51 BC, extended Rome’s territory to the English Channel and the Rhine. Caesar became the first Roman general to cross both when he built a bridge across the Rhine and conducted the first invasion of Britain.

Caesar reports in the Bellum Gallicum that in 57 BC, the Gauls on the Atlantic coast, including the Veneti, were forced to submit to Caesar’s authority as governor. They were obliged to sign treaties and yield hostages as a token of good faith. However, in 56 BC, the Veneti captured some of Julius Caesar’s officers while they were foraging within their regions, intent on using them as bargaining chips to secure the release of the hostages Caesar had forced them to give him. Angered by what he considered a breach of law, Caesar prepared for war.

Sllavilaset (?) vendit

Ensimmäinen teoria, joka yhdisti nuo väestöryhmät, oli germaaninen teoria slaavilai- sista vendeistä, jota nimitystä käytettiin germaanien toimesta kansainvaellusten ajan jälkeen 600-luvulla läntiseenkin Euroop- paan levittäytyneitä länsislaaveista, joiden heimojen omia nimiä olivat olivat mm.obotriitit ja wiltzit.Teoriaa kannatetaan vieläkin.

Slaavilaisten wendien asuttamat alueet 1100-luvulla.

Eräillä keltiiläisillä kielillä vendien nimi oli finn tai fine,millä ei tarvitse olla Suomen vieraskielisen nimen kanssa yhteyttä - mutta täysin mahdotontakaan sellainen ei ole.

Vendit (Baltia)

Vendit olivat heimo nykyisen Latvian Cēsisin alueella.Tutkijoiden parissa ei ole täyt-tä varmuutta siitä, olivatko vendit slaaveja vai suomalais-ugrilaisia. Vendi-nimitystä on käytetty monista slaavilaisista kansoista, mutta monet tutkijat uskovat heidän pu-huneen suomalaissukuista kieltä. Ensimmäinen maininta heistä on Henrikin Liivin-maan kronikassa, jonka mukaan he olivat alun perin asuttaneet Ventajoen aluetta Kuurinmaalla, mutta kuurit olivat karkottaneet heidät nykyisen Riian alueelle ja edel-leen Cēsisin alueelle,jossa asui heidän lisäkseen latgalleja.Vendit käännytettiin kris- tinuskoon rauhanomaisesti vuonna 1206 ja sen jälkeen he taistelivat Kalparitariston puolella Baltian pakanakansoja sekä venäläisiä vastaan.

Liivinmaan riimikronikassa vendeihin liitetään mahdollisesti Latvian lipun syntytari-na. Kronikan mukaan vendien alueelta Cēsisistä tulleet sotajoukot toivat tullessaan valko-punaraitaisen sotalipun.

Ventavan alue Venta-joen suulla katsotaan vendien/veneettien vanhaksi alueeksi. Venta-nimeä pidetään kelttiläisenä, se tarkoittaa ”keskusta ja pääkaupunkia” (mm. Winchester) ja liettuassa siitä johdettu vieta tarkoittaa ylipäätään paikkaa.

A. Krūkas glezna ”CēsisLatvijas karoga šūpulis 1279. g.”, kurā mākslinieks mēģinājis rekonstruēt latgaļu 13. gadsimta karogu.

Latvian vendien lippu, eli nykyinen Latvian lippu 1200-luvulla Cēsisissa (maalattu tuolloisen kronikan mukaan).Lippu on vahvasti Rooman veneettien mallin mukainen, ja on sitten useilla paikkakunnilla palautettu esimerkiksi kaupunkilipuksi. Rooman veneeteillä on valkoisen raidan sijasta valkoinen risti (mikä saattaa johtua kristinuskosta), jota on edelleen ehkä tyylitelty:

Triesten,               Oderzen,       Padovan,        Vicenzan,


Veneettien hevostenjumalatar Epona

Epona.jpg

Epona and her horses, from Köngen, Germany, about 200 AD.

https://www.tiede.fi/comment/2604624#comment-2604624

Puolan kielen etymologi Aleksandr Brükner (1856-1939) esitti, että Rooman ja Baltian veneetit ovat samaa alkuperää, jonka hän arveli olevan lähellä kantaidoeurooppaa.


Aleksandr Brükner

” Though Jordanes is the only author to explicitly associate the Veneti with what ap-pear to have been Slavs and Antes,the Tabula Peutingeriana,originating from the 3rd – 4th century AD,separately mentions the Venedi on the northern bank of the Danube somewhat upstream of its mouth, and the Venadi Sarmatae along the Baltic coast. [17] ”

Sarmaatit saivat nimensä ”lisko(nnäköiset) ihmiset” käyttämistään kaviohaarniskois-ta. Myös heidän kielisukulaisensa alaanit käyttivät sellaisia käydessään hevoskara-vaanikauppaa Persian ja pohjoisten alueiden välillä. Venadi Sarmatae tarkoittaa ”lis-konnäköisiä (sarmaatin näköisiä) veneettejä”: se tarkoittaa todennäköisesti sitä, että myös veneetit käyttivät ainakin joissakin vaiheissa sellaisia. Kaviohaarniskalla on sellainen ominaisuus, että se torjuu metallikärkisiä nuolia ja keihätä, ja jopa miekan- pistoa sitä paremmin, mitä terävämpiä nämä aseet ovat. Sittemmin viikinkimiekkojen kärjet tehtiinkin paksuiksi ja pyöreiksi: ei katkennut ja lumpsahti haarniskan suojen tai kavioiden välistä.

” Henry of Livonia in his Latin chronicle of c. 1200 described a tribe of the Vindi (Ger-man Winden, English Wends) that lived in Courland and Livonia in what is now Lat-via. The tribe’s name is preserved in the river Windau (Latvian Venta), with the town of Windau (Latvian Ventspils) at its mouth, and in Wenden, the old name of the town of Cēsis in Livonia. The fact that 12th century Germans from Saxony referred to these people as ’Winden’ suggests that they were Slavs. [18] (See Vends). ”

.
Puolalainen slavisti Aleksandr Brückner  esitti, että Venta on kantaindoeurooppaa ja latinaa lähellä olevaa veneetin kieltä, joka kuului kelttiläis-romaaniseen kieliper-heeseen. (Tosin eräät venäläiset lähteet arvelevat väiden Roomankin veneettien olleen länsislaaveja.)

http://etimologija.baltnexus.lt/?w=Venta

https://www.tiede.fi/comment/1445254#comment-1445254

Max Vasmer (1886 – 1962)

Venäjä etymologit Max Vasmer ja tämän teosten toimittaja venäjäksi akateemikko Oleg Trubatšëv myötäilevät Brükneriä:

https://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2019/02/mista-turku-tulee-ja-minne-menee

tiistai, 5. helmikuu 2019

Mistä Turku tulee (ja minne menee…)?

Välittömästi nimi tullee balttilaisesta kuurin kielestä, joka on sulautunut (uudestaan?) latviaan.Mutta mistä se sinne on tullut,vai onko siellä kehittynyt aina kantaindoeuroo- pasta asti? Samalla tutkitaan vieläkin arvoituksellisempien turkki- ja Turkki-sanojen taustaa.

https://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2014/01/su-ja-balttilaisten-kielten-kehtysyhteyksita-balttilaisen-lahteen-mukaan

turgus = tori, kauppankänti, markkinat, balttilais-iranilaista kantaa.

Venäjä tuo asiaan uutta pointtia:

https://vasmer.lexicography.online/%D1%82/%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3

торг = tori, kauppa, tingintä, huutokauppa

род. п. -а, торго́вый = kaupallinen, kauppa-, торгова́ть = käydä kauppaa,

укр. торг, род. п. -у, др.-русск. търгъ, ст.-слав. тръгъ ἀγορά [agora] (Супр.), тръгóвьнъ, тръговиште, болг. търг, сербохорв. тр̑г «площадь = aukio, рынок = markkina; товар = tavara», словен. tȓg «рынок», чеш., слвц. trh, польск. targ, в.-луж. torhośćo Праслав. *tъrgъ (основа на -u; см. Мейе, ét. 239),

родственно лит. tur̃gus «рынок», лтш. tìrgus — то же,

венет. Τεργέστε [Tergeste] «Триест = Trieste» (Страбон 314), Opitergium, местн. н. на территории Венеции (буквально «хлебный рынок = leipätori» или «товарный рынок»), иллир. tergitio «negotiator», абл. tregë «рынок»; см. Г. Майер, IF I, 323 и сл.; Кречмер, «Glotta», 22, 102; 30, 140 и сл.; М. — Э. 4, 194 и сл.; Эндзелин, СБЭ 198; Лагеркранц, IF 25, 370; Краэ, IF 58, 220.

Из вост.-слав.заимств. др.-сканд. torg «рынок», шв. torg, датск. torv, фин. turku; см. Ельквист 1205; Томсен, SА 4,404; Миккола,Berühr. 170 и сл.;ÄВ 80.  s.air. torc

Brüknerin tulokset hautautuivat erilaisten pseudoteorioiden humuun, joissa usen haettiin ”hienoja” kieli- ja muita sukulaisia esimerkiksi antiikin tai Raamatun kielten ja kansojen joukosta - tai eräät toiset mahdollisimman kaukaa niistä.Brüknerin asennoi- tuminen on kuitenkin päinvastainen: hän kyseenalaistaa ”omilleen” rakkaan oletus-arvon, jonka ainoana kilpailijana on kai ollut, että Rooman veneetit olisivat olleet latinalaisia ja että muunimien yhtäläisyys on sattumaa ja ”yleistä indoeurooppaa”.

***

Toinen osa veneettejä jäi Rooman ulkopuolelle toimien satoja vuosia sen tärkeänä liittolaisena harjoittaen mm. pronssin raaka- aineiden kuparin ja tina hevoskaravaani- ja merikauppaa. Julius Caesar satoja vuosin katsoi, että ulkoveneettien vaikutusvalta Rooman asioihin on paisunut liian suureksi, ja että heidät on kytkettävä Rooman kuuliaisiksi verovelvollisiksi alaisiksi/kansalaisiksi tai karkotettava keski-Euroopasta.

https://www.pirkanblogit.fi/2019/risto-koivula/julius-caesar-ratkaisi-gallian-sodan-uudella-tasmaaseella-viikatteella/

Julius Caesar ratkaisi Gallian sodan uudella täsmäaseella – viikatteella!

Oheisessa kuvassa etualalla olevan roomalaisen kaleerilaivan kannelta roomalaiset sotilaat, jotka on tunnistettavissa jumalattoman suuresta jalkaväen kilvestä,ja vähem- män suojavarustettu kelttiläinen seppämestari liittolaisheimosta itse tekemänsä eri-koisen pitkävartisen teräaseen kanssa hyökkäävät taaempana olevan komeamman veneettiläisen kauppa- ja sotapurjelaivan kimppuun, joka luultavasti seisoo rasvatyy-nessä,eikä siinä ole airoja eikä soutajia.Sitä piirittää luultavasti kaksi muuakin kalee- ria, joita purjehtijalle ”huono” ilma ei lainkaan haittaa, päin vastoin. Paikka on Britan-nian kanaali ja vuosi on 56 e.a.a. eli noin 100 vuotta myöhemmin kuin Adrianmeren veneetit olivat varmistaneet Roomalle voiton 2. puunilaissodassa ja supervalta-ase-man Välimerellä. Myös nämä Breagnen veneetit, jotka kuljettivat pronssiin tarvittavaa tinaa Britanniassa manner-Eurooppaan,olivat olleet Rooman ylimpiä ystäviä aina sii- hen asti,kun vuonna 58 e.a.a.Gallia Transalpinan maaherraksi nimitettiin Julius Cae- sar, joka muuten johti itsekin sukujuurensa peräti veneettien Venus-jumalattaresta. Hänen mielestään veneetit hallitsivat liian kriittisiä resursseja Rooman kannalta. Rannikon naapurikansat lisäksi seurasivat poliiisesti heitä eivätkä Roomaa. Rooman laivastoa komensi muuan (Marcus Junius) Brutus,  joka tässä yhteydessä saavutti Caesarin jakamattoman (joskin tunnetusti katteettoman) luottamuksen.

Näin kertoo Caesar itse:

Gallian sota:

II 34

” … At the same season Publius Crassus whom he [Caesar] despatched with one le-gion agaist the Veneti, Venelli, Osismi, Curiolotae, Esubii, Aulerci and Redones, the maritime states which border upon the ocean, reported that all those states had been brought into subjection to the power of Rome. … ”

III 7

” …But at this point the war broke suddenly in Gaul, of which the cause was as fol-lows.Publius Crassus the younger (Jr.) with Seventh legion had been wintering at the by the Ocean at the Andes. As there was a lack of corn in those parts, he despatched several commandants and tribunes into the neighbouring states to seek it. Of these officers Titus Terrasidius was sent to the Esubii, Marcus Trebius Gallus among the Curiosolites, Quintus Velantius with Titus Silius among the Veneti.

Thsese Veneti exrcise by far the most extensive authority over all the sea cost in these districts, for they have numerous ships, in which it was their custom to sail to Britain and they excel the rest of the theory and practice of navigation. As the sea is very boisterous,  and open, with a few harbours here and there which tehy hold them- selves, they have as tributaries almost all those whose custom is to sail that sea.

It was Veneti who took the first step, by detaining Silius an Velanius supposing that through them they should recover their own hostages whom they had given to Cras-sus. Their authority induced their neighbours – for the Gauls are sudden and spas-modic in their designs – to detain Trebius and Terrasidius or the same reason, and, rapidly despatcing deputies among their chiefs, they bound themselves by mutual oath to do nothing save by common conscent, and to abide together the single issue of their destiny. Moreover, they urged the remaining states to choose rather to abide in the liberty received from their ancestors than to endure Roman slavery. The whole sea-cost was rapidly won to their opinion, and they dispatched a deputation in com-mon to Publius Crassius, bidding him restore their hostages if he would receive back his own officers.

Caesar was informed by Crassus concerning these matters, and, as he himself was at some distance, he ordered men-of-war to be built meanwhile on the the river Loire, which flows into Ocean, rowers to be drafted from Provence, seemen and steersmen to be got together. These requirements were very rapidly executed, and so soon as the season allowed he himself hastened to join the army.

... "


***

UUSI TEORIA ESITTÄÄ TODISTEITA VENEETTIEN KIELEN LÄHEISISTÄ SUHTEISTA SUOMALAIS-UGRILAISEEN KIELIKUNTAAN

Tässä yhteydessä on kuitenkin sanottava, että kirjallinen historiallinen aineisto on tietyllä tavalla rajoittunutta: se koostuu paikannimien ja lainojen lisäksi sakraalisista, pappien jumalille kirjottamista tekstinpätkistä. Voidaan mm. kysyä PUHUIVATKO PAPIT TEMPPELITOIMISSAAN JA KANSA SAMAA KIELTÄ – vai puhuivatko papit liiviä ja kansa esimerkiksi kelttiä?

Anders Pääbo (mahdollisesta sukulaisuudesta neandertalin ihmisen genomin selvit-täjän Svante Pääbon kanssa ei tietoa) yhdistää myös asiaan aiheettomasti pohjois-Euroopan varhaisimman Maglemosen kulttuurin. Se edustajat eivät puhuneet urali-laista kieltä, vaan sellainen on tullut idästä samoihin aikoihin, kun Maglemosen kult-tuuri on lakannut. Maglemoset tunsivat piikiviterät (sellaisella voi ajaa partansakin) ja liikkuivat yhdestä puusta koverretuilla ruuhilla. Veneetit kävivät meripihka-, pronssi- ja muiden arvotarvikkeiden kauppaansa kaviohaarnikoiduin hevoskaravaanein kuin alaanit idempänä.

http://www.paabo.ca/papers/veneticgrammar+dots.pdf

The Language of the Ancient Veneti

A DESCRIPTION OF VENETIC PRONUNCIATION AND GRAMMAR


***

https://www.pirkanblogit.fi/2019/risto-koivula/veneetin-ja-itamerensuomen-hammastyttavia-yhtalaisyyksia/


Veneetin ja itämerensuomen hämmästyttäviä yhtäläisyyksiä.

Veneetit olivat Rooman toiseksi tärkein kansa sen muodostuessa suurvallaksi II puu-nilaissodan aikana n. v. 200 e.a.a. (Hannibal vs. Fabius Cunctator). He ratkaisivat tuon sodan ensin olemalla liittymättä sen mm. kelttiläisten naapuriensa tapaan Kar-thagon armeijan ylipäällikön Hannibalin johtamiin vihollisiin, ja sitten liittoutumalla Rooman kanssa ”tasavertaisesti” ilman alistetun äänetön kumppani -”liittolaisen” vai-hetta. Vaikka veneetit asuivat varsin lokoisia paikkoja viljelyn, karjanhoidon ja kalas-tuksen kannalta, heidän ratsuarmeijansa oli teräkunnossa, koska he olivat jatkuvasti harrastaneet vaarallista hevoskaravaanikauppaa pitkin Eurooppaa.

Tuossa vaiheessa Rooman kansalaisuudesta tehtiin tavoiteltu ”hyödyke”, ja samalla linjalla jatkettiin roomalaisten kunnioittamien kreikkalaisten suuntaan. Roomalaiset eivät pitäneet veneettejä keltteinä,mutta he olivat huolissaan näiden kelttiläistymises-tä. Sellaisen katsottiin pitkälle jo tapahtuneen - paitsi kielen osalta.Oliko kieli säilynyt omillaan – vai vaihtunut pitkälle latinaan, sitä tarina ei kerro.

Veneetit olivat sotavaunukansojen jälkeläisiä kuten latinalaiset ja keltitkin. Kreikka-laista ja germaaneista ei niin ole varmaa.He olivat asuttaneet Aigeian meren pohjois- rantaa viimeitään edellisestä vuosituhannen vaihteesta,ja käyneet siitä alkaen prons- si- ja meripihkakauppaa aikaisempien asuinsijojensa suuntaan Baltiaan ja Tans-kaan. Heidän kielessään on paljon sanoja kantaindoeuroopasta, jotka ovat muuntu- neet samalla tavalla kuin latinassakin. Mutta on paljon myös muuta sanastoa.

Jos edes jotkut heistä,vaikka vanhojen sotavaunujumalien (Reitia-jumalatar, mah- dollisesti sotavaunukansan tammajumalatar Ratainitsha (eli ”Rattaiska”) papit, olisi puhunut suomalsiperäistä kieltä, se tarkoittaisi,että myös sotavaunukansaan oli osal- listunut kielellisesti uralilaisiakin heimoja omana itsenään eikä vain Volgan vasara-kirveskansan (Fatjanovon kulttuuri) kielessä ja geeneissä ”lisämausteena”. Tätä ka-nadanvirolainen Angres Pääbo tulee väittäneeksi. Sotavaunukansa siis ei puhunut kantaindoeurooppaa, sellainen oli hajonnut jo ainakin tuhat vuotta aikaisemmin.

Veneettien tärkeitä vanhoja kaupunkeja olivat Tergeste (”Torille asti”, Trieste),  (At)Este , Opiterge (”Ruokatori” = "Apetori", Oderzo), ja mahdollisesti etruskeilta vallattu Padua (Po-joen etruskinkielinen nimi, Padova, josta Rooman aikana tuli pääkaupunki). Veneetin sana opi = ruoka(tavarat) on mahdollisesti SU- tai kampake-raaminen paleosana ape, suomen verbistä appaa, viron apama. Sana ruoka, viron roog on samaa juurta kuin ruis, viron rukis, liett. rugys sekä rokka, viron rokk = ruisjauhovelli, -taikina) ja on sotavaunukansojen välinen sana, joka tarkoittaa muilla tuotteilla vaihdettua tai vaihtoa varten tuotettua ruokaa, siis juuri ruokatavaraa. Sanaa ei ole gootissa eikä siten myöskään kantagermaanissa. Samaa juurta oleva gootin sana tarkoittaa hyvitystä, korvausta, sakkoa, negatiivista vastinetta.

Venetsian kaupunki perustettiin vasta 400-luvulla balttilaiseen tapaan suoalueiden keskelle linnakkeeksi ja turvapaiksi hunneja vastaan. Latinalaistuneita asukkaita nimitettiin ilmeisimmin edelleen veneeteiksi.

Andres Pääbon tulokset eivät osoita varmuudella,että veneetti olisi koskaan ollut SU-kieli,sillä vastaavanlaisia yhtäläisyysluetteloja on joidenkin balttikieltenkin kuten kuu- rin  kanssa. Mutta niiden kanssa on myös ratkaisevia eroja kuten nominien suvut ja verbien aspektit, liettuan tooni ja liikkuva paino jne. Pääbo väittää, että sellaisa ei ole ollut veneetin kanssa. Mutta verbisysteemiä, joka ratkaisee, ei huippuhyvin tunnetakaan.

Aukštaičių Ratainyčia

http://www.paabo.ca/papers/veneticgrammar+dots.pdf

PART TWO: GRAMMARA DESCRIPTION OF VENETICGRAMMAR

Expanding the Discussion from “THE VENETIC LANGUAGE

An Ancient Language from a New Perspective: FINAL” (rev 6/2015)

Andres P ä ä b o (Ontario, Canada)

The following paper is from the chapter on Venetic Grammar docu- mented in “THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from a New Perspective:  FINAL” in order to present a summary of the Venetic Grammar as discovered in the study – with some improvements and expansions from the original, wherever some further obser-vations could be made.As explained in the above document,this grammar is basical-ly achieved directly from the Venetic inscriptions. The methodology required first the discovery of word stems with the same meaning across all the inscriptions in the stu-dy which then produced grammarless sentences of the kind ‘Man -duck- elder’.Along he way, I keep an eye on the grammatical endings and manage to determine mea-nings as I go, but the final results for grammatical ending functions is only reached when arriving at the end. The methodology of deciphering involved a great deal of attention to the context as determined by archeology, in which the sentences must appear so that whatever meaning is assigned has to resonate with the context; and also context within the sentence.

Thus the methodology did not project any known language onto the Venetic. How-ever, once it was clear Venetic was Finnic,I began to take notice of parallels in Esto-nian and Finnish and - discovered some major grammatical endings were close to the same. In languages, grammar changes most slowly, and that is why more distant languages will still be similar in grammatical features. And that is also why for any suggestion that Venetic was genetically connected to Estonian or Finnish, we MUST find similarity in grammar. The similarities were also noted since if Venetic was Fin-nic Estonian and Finnish grammar can now be used for further insights.The following is intended for the average educated reader who has used common grammar descriptions. My work contains little linguistic jargon and this paper should be easy to read.


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Most Comprehensive Description of Venetic

***


http://www.paabo.ca/veneti/?fbclid=IwAR3AhiwwOs2Pk-mj0-9DuDKY_TeWngU11vln0QqkIaFCprUjlGuwxNzht8o


" 2017 COMMENTARY OF THE INTERNET PUBLICATION OF ANDRES PÄÄBO

and an Introduction with Reproduction of the Content Pages


THE VENETIC LANGUAGE

THE VENETIC LANGUAGE: An Ancient Language from a New Perspective: FINAL

The ancient inscriptions found in northern Italy has been a mystery for centu-ries. But in the last half century, scholars have been devoting much time and effort to trying to decipher them, to learn what they say. Because the writing used an alphabet adopted from the Etruscans and modified, in the beginning scholars thought the Venetic language might be similar to Etruscan. Later, scholars thought the language was Illyrian. Finally scholars decided perhaps Venetic was an early form of Latin. Because Latin is well known, many scholars rose to the challenge of trying to find Latin inside the inscriptions. But the Latin hypothesis has not had much success either. In order to find Latin-like senten-ces in the Venetic inscriptions,scholars had to imagine many puzzling sections of the inscriptions were proper names of the deceased, his relatives, or dieties.

Pushing Latin into the Venetic inscriptions produced some results, but the La-tin hypothesis was not causing scholars to leap for joy.  Because of the unin-spiring results,it inpired new theories like the one that came from some Slovene scholars. Slovene-speaking scholars began to wonder if the Slovene langauge itself was descended from Venetic. The Slovene hypothesis was born.  But the Slovene hypothesis has not been as smooth as expected. There is no word list, no grammar and sentences seem absurd to archeologists. The Slovene hypo-thesis like the Latin hypothesis has made very slow progress and leads to great amounts of discussion and debate. The results have never been convin-cing enough for the matter to be settled - for everyone to agree that the Venetic language has been discovered.Instead,the followers of the Slovene hypothesis ridicule thetraditonal academic approach for producing empty sentences - like what one sees today on tombstones and memorial plaques - mostly proper names. And on the other hand, the academics who believe they have followed good linguistic analysis, ridicule and ignore the Slovene analysis for having no methodology at all - amateurishly simply trying to hear vague Slovene senten-ces in the Venetic inscriptions in much the same way a religious monk might hear God speak to him through whispers in the sounds of the wind.

Into the middle of this conflict, stepped Andres Pääbo, who used neither me-thod. He approached the inscriptions like an archeologist does - studying the objects on which the inscriptions were written,and their context in the archeolo- gical finds. Because all the Venetic sentences were written in short sentences on objects with clear purpose and context.  By putting himself into the mind of the Veneti, he would be able to understand what the inscription probably says, and probably does not say, and that would serve as a guide to decisionmaking. He describes his methodology in great deal in the book.

Andres Pääbo did his interpreting from two major books  that catalogued the inscriptions including illustrations and descriptions of their context in the ar-cheology. After a few years he documented what he found and created a book in the form of a pdf document.  He placed the 2006 publication on the internet in order to recieve feedback.  The response was sometimes vicious.  Followers of the Slovene hypothesis  simply could not accept this new enemy to their hypo-thesis appearaing out of nowhere. While a few critics were openminded, and tried to explain why Pääbo was achieving good results, easily, others were so upset that they could not think of any other reaction than to try in all means possible to ridicule the new "Finnic Hypothesis" and even to verbally mock Pääbo personally in public "commentary".like Anthony Ambrozic. In fact Pää-bo is a cool scientific person who had found a methodology that permitted the inscriptions to reveal themselves.This methodology could have lead the results towards another language,but it progressed towards looking increasingly like a Finnic language, carried down from the north by ancient amber trade. This allo-wed additional use of Estonian and Finnish to confirm results - as an additional check.

Since 2006, Pääbo continued to expand the book, and make it better organized, He added more work on determining Venetic lexicon and grammar. Anyone tru-ly interested in the mysterious Veneti, has to investigate what Pääbo has done, to decide for themselves the validity of the work.



The following presents the issues that has arisen in this political climate of trying to identify the Venetic language in the form of a debate between three people: one understands Pääbo's hypothesis, who we will call PRO, and one who follows the Slovene and/or Latin point of view, who we will call ANTI, and a third who will be the MODERATOR. The questions and answers are developed around the most common ones that have arisen since the first publication of Paabo's book and theory in 2006



A  COMMENTARY IN A DEBATE FORM


MODERATOR:  The most common objection to Paabo's perspective,  is that he proposes that Venetic was a Finnic language. Let us begin there.

ANTI: Scholars say that FInnic people did not arrive at the Baltic until a little before Roman times.How could Venetic inscriptions be Finnic?"

HM That is Alfred Rosenbergist bullshit-KONE-pseudosciece!

https://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2019/12/itamerensuomalaisten-vaaraa-historiaa

"PRO: The theory that the Finnic languages arose at the Ural Moun-tains and then migrated west in steps, with linguistic divergence at each step, was concieved a century ago before there was much infor-mation from archeology and other sciences, and the theory was crea-ted by linguists who were not even qualified to interpret their results.

Linguistics can only analyse languages and determine how one lan-guage changed into another, and how two languages could have had a common parent, and so on. Thus the linguistic tree diagram of rela-tionships between languages could be correct, but the entire idea of where it began, migrations, etc is not provided by linguistics - the interpretation and explanation has to be done outside of linguistics by archeologists and other sciences. The Uralic languages theory has been debated in Finnic scholarly circles since the 1960's.By about the 1990's the original theory had been modified to keep the migrations idea, but push the time of arrival back to the archeological "Comb Ceramic Culture" of around 5000 years ago. Any notion of Finnic language arriving only around Roman times, is misinformed and a reversal back to the original. The century-old idea tends to survive in literature outside Finnic languages and scientists who do not do their research will find it in their books, and not realize that these ideas are now discredited by sciences like archeology, and been replaced.

ANTI: But the new population genetics has determined that a Y-DNA N-haplogroup has migrated from the Urals westward to the Baltic and arrived at the Baltic only about 2000 years ago, agreeing with the linguistic theory.

PRO: This could simply be a matter of the population geneticist being ignorant of the story behind the original Uralic Languages Family, and unaware of the debate going on to make the story agree better with all sciences.Even so,all scientists who speak about migrations west from the Urals, completely ignore the reality that there were,by 11000 years ago, peoples already established throughout the region between the Baltic and Urals. Archeology has determined that at the end of the Ice Age,when the land was flooded with glacial meltwater,boat-using hun- ter gatherers developed, and that they quickly followed waterways like the Volga to the Urals and archeological findings like the Shigir statue found in the remains of an ancient bog, prove that European boat peoples were at the Urals at 11000 years ago, and also that the middle Ural Mountains had reindeer hunters of Asian origina, probably the original carriers of the N-haplogroup. What really happened, then, was tha after this contact between these two groups, a mixing began, and what migrated was not people, but INFLUENCE. The N-haplo-group diffused westward and so did the Urals Mountains language. The DIFFUSION could have reached the Baltic only by the Roman Age, but a Proto-Finnic boat people language could already have been esablished at the Baltic 12,000 years ago.

ANTI:  Yes, I agree, any migrations theory has to involve interractions with peoples already along the migration path and at the destination, and that means there is influence,mixing.The diffusion of the new cha- racteristics into the old, without there being any designed migration of a group.

PRO: Everyone seems to be making a fundamental error - treating the original boat peoples as if they suddenly vanished, and a new people, language, genes moved into that territory. Obviously if there already exist a people in an area, you cannot ignore them. They have a language and that language is influenced (adopting new words, for example) Imagine puttina a drop of blue dye in a bowl of water in 12,000 years ago, and soon the water is blue and then put a drop of red dye coming in from an edge, and the red dye begins to spread, the closest blue water becomes a strong purple and the purple is weaker further away from the source, until furthest away the red is so weak te blue water is unchanged.  So imagine the blue water repre-sents the boat peoples at around 11,000 years ago, and the red dye is introduced about 10,000 years ago, and it spends many millenia di-luting westward. It doesn't matter when the purple arrives at the Baltic. The blue from the boat peoples has always been there since 12,000 years ago.

MODERATOR: Let us not go off topic.
Paabo's interpretation of Vene- tic inscriptions was not dependent on any historical or prehistorical story.The history and pre-history of the Finnic boat peoples, is a sepa-rate thousand page book all to itself. The timing of arrivals of migra-tions or diffusions at the Baltic can be irrelevant. If the Finnic language was still in the Volga, for example, it could have travelled down the Volga and explain the "Eneti of Paphlagonia" or archeology finding Baltic amber in tombs of Babylon dating to before 5,000 years ago.

We should not pay too much attention to geographical locations of source Finns. After all Hungarian has a language closest to the Finno-Ugrians of the Ob River up in Siberia. Who knows, Venetic could have been a language that preceded Hungarian, not far north from the Adri-atic Veneti location.So we should depart from that question and deal with the Venetic inscriptions,which Paabo claims he interpreted direct- ly from the archeological objects contexts and internal back-and-forth analysis. So let's look specifically at what  the book and theory is about,and leave the historical and prehistorical theories for a separate book for another author another time.

PRO: Yes, the whole story of prehistorical Europe is a completely se-parate story that does not affect the project of deciphering the inscrip-tions.  Paabo's methodology indeed does not begin by assuming a connection to Estonian or Finnish. He goes off on tangents probably for his own speculations. The book actually begins by interpreting the archeology directly, just like a deaf person learns much of a language from observing the use of signs and labels in a grocery store. But of course, once the Finnic nature of Venetic becomes obvious, references can be made to Estonian for further help.

ANTI: Alright, we can leave the historical reconstructions to the prehis-torians. Let us speak about language. Let us speak about evidence of Finnic at the Adriatic. If Venetic was Finnic, how does Paabo explain all the toponymic evidence of an old Slavic type of language in the mountains of the north Adriatic region?

PRO: Two peoples,two languages,can coexist in the same area. Paa- bo proposes that the Veneti were trader peoples, much like the Phoe-nicians, except the Veneti travelled the large rivers through Europe - Loire, Elbe,Rhine,Danube,and so on - and of course east-west across the northern seas.If we use the Phoenicians as an example,the Phoe- nicians created colonies in numerous places along their routes along the south coast of the Mediterranean, in  the Iberian Peninsula and south along the African coast. They established their colonies among settled peoples speaking a different language.The Phoenicians spoke a Semitic language. The settled peoples actually welcomed trader co- lonies, as settled peoples were stuck in one place, while the long dis-tance traders brought exotic goods from afar.  So Paabo's view of the north AdrIatic Venetic peoples was that they had created colonies at the termnals of major rivers, If you look closely Venetic cities are all along the rivers descending to the Adriatic.  They were not mountain people.On the other hand,the settled peoples of the region were those who inhabited mountains and valleys, and tended to herds of goats, sheep and cattle. That is how you have to look at it.

ANTI: The Slovene theory has not given much attention to the ancient world of trade,even though there is plenty evidence in archeology and ancient history of how Veneti were conduits for both amber and tin 'from the end of the earth'.

PRO: The discussion about the role of ancient trade to the creation of civilization has not happened. Today we take it for granted. We get fruits in our grocery store that came by ship from another continent, and do not think of how significant it is, and so if in early Europe there were northern aboriginal peoples who had nomadism in boat in their blook since the ice Age, they would have easily moved into the role of being the professional traders and shippers of early European civilization.

ANTI: Scholars say that the Urnfield Cultures, found scattered around Europe, were the result of random migrations of Venetic farmers, but it makes more sense they were nodes of a large scale trade network

PRO: Exactly.   But the large networks of both the Phoenicians and Venetic came to an end with the rise of the Roman Empire. Venetic colonies melted into their language and culture of their local settled peoples. In Brittany the became Celtic-speaking, between the Baltic and Black Seas, they became West Slavic speaking, between the Baltic and the Adriatic they became Slovene-speaking, and of course in northern Italy they became Latin-speaking.  If the Phoenicians colonies melted into their surroundings, then the Venetic colonies did too. There was a major Phoenician colony in Spain.   Before the Roman Empire screwed up the original Europe, they were all speaking their Semitic Phoenician. I see absolutely no problem in claiming there was an original ancient Venetic language covering early Europe, which then was broken up by developments adter the Roman age. There is just alot of evidence of early peoples becoming assimilated as a result of the five centuries of the Roman Empire.

ANTI: If the Veneti were everywhere in Europe, using  large trade system, then by your theory, they evidence of the large scale system should be found everywhere in ancient place names.

PRO: Yes, but obviously along the trade routes and around the nodes. And the settled peoples between these trade routes -in hills and mountains - could have been speaking a different language. For example, in Western Europe there could have been Venetic-like dialects in the major waterways, but the settled peoples between the water routes could have been Cetlic or something else. My approach does not conflict with the Slovene or Celtic scholars finding Indo-European languages in the lands between the major trade routes.

ANTI: So we do not have to consider a FInnic Venetic to be in conflict with Slovene theories about European origins.

PRO: No. But that also means that you have to expect that toponymic analysis will also find Finnic Venetic names associated with waterways, etc alongside the major trade routes, and this should not be surprising. . By identifying the trade routes, we can find the Finnic words, and by identifying the regions with the settled peoples, we can find the  settled people language. For example the Loire language was called Liger by the Romans, which was LIGERA, which can be interpreted with Finnic as LIIGE-RA 'moving-way'. Looking into the mountains, we will not find FInnic words anymore, but Indo-European ones, or some kind of hybrid between the two.

ANTI: Alright. When Paabo first came out with his book, everyone assumed he had simply tried to find Estonian sentences in Venetic. But he did not use that approach. Let us speak about that. Let's get back to the language deciphering that the book as all about.

PRO:  According to Paabo's lengthy prefaces, he was already somewhat knowledgable in linguistics, and how linguists ridiculed the way amateurs were attempting to discover their language in toponymy by  discovering  similar words in their language. He had also noted that past interpreting of the Venetic using more or less this approach, had not solved the problem. He could have tried to project Estonian onto Venetic, but he was determined to find a better, more scientific methodology. He used the methodology already at the start, but because he also consulted Estonian (Consulting is not the same as forcing Estonian onto Venetic) all readers ASSUMED in 2006  he had simply looked for Estonian in the Venetic.  So that is why in his FINAL version, he spend a third of the book describing the project and its methodology in detail. As you  see, he deciphered the Venetic directly from context for as far as he could go, and when it was clear it was Finnic and he could see the ways in which Venetic differed from Finnish and Estonian - such as being less rounded, more palatalized - he was able to use Estonian and Finnish to refine the whole thing. He could then apply linguistics too. You can read about it in detail,

ANTI: So he applied linguistics too? That is new to me.

PRO: According to Paabo, the reality is that before you can analyze a language with linguistics you have to discover it. If for example, some-one finds an unknown language in a South American jungle, a linguist has to live among the people and learn the language from experien-cing it in actual use. It is only when at last some of the language is dis-covered, that the linguist can begin to appy linguistic wisdom. Of course, in practice, usually the linguist finds a translator (usually called an informant), who konws both the linguist's language and the langu-age of the tribe - as a result of his or her own experience learning both languages. Therefore, the first challenge in deciphering is to discover the language. An easy way is to find the informant - in archeology that would be like archeology discovering Venetic sentences with accom-panying translations in a known ancient language like Greek, Phoeni-cian, Roman etc. The translation can then be compared to the un-known Venetic and a few words and grammatical endings discove-red.  Another way is to discover that Venetic is related to a known lan-guage. That works only if you can confirm for certain that the known language is REALLY related to Venetic. If the hypothesis is false then - since humans can imagine a sentence in the sounds of the Venetic - the results will be false. The third way, which Paabo relies on in order to make sure he does not waste time forcing a false hypothesis, is to behave like a deaf person in a grocery store learning the language on grocery items.He puts himself  in the mind of the Venetic person in the situation in which the inscriptions are written and used.  All these me-thods will discover the language, according to the skill of the analysts, But in all cases, once the language has been discovered, at least partially, linguistics has something to analyze.

ANTI: Linguistics does not need a complete language to study?

PRO:It needs something.Otherwise a language is only alot of sounds. Without having some word meanings and grammatical functions, linguistics only sees phonetics. Linguists can detect repeated patterns and it can help identify words and grammatical endings, but it cannot translate. The actual translating relies on getting those meanings. It is like sleep experiments - the sleep scientists can tell from brainwave activity,  when the subject is dreaming, but to determine what the sub-ject is dreaming about they have to wake him up and ask. So yes, lin-guistics is important, but it is a separate thing applicable only once we have discovered at least some language, and it is not just sounds.

Linguistics principles include finding consistency -  word stems always mean the same,grammatical endings always work the same way, and if comparing Venetic to Estonian, there has to be consistency in the way Venetic and Estonian are shifted from each other. I recall he no-ted that where Estonian used a D in a particular location, it became a J, or that an H became a palatalization, that sort of thing. I guess he could have continued finding such shifts if only there were more Ve-netic sentences. We are talking about less than 100 complete senten-ces and many are Roman era inscriptions on urns, that are mostly just abbreviations, like today a gravestone has R.I.P. instead of actual words. When it comes to Venetic inscriptions, the number that can be used is far too small to take any analysis to the point of reconstructing normal everyday conversation.

ANTI: So deciphering is not about linguistic analysis?

PRO: No. Linguistics is one of many tools. According to Paabo, deci-phering is just like anyone experiencing a language he or she does not know,and learning it by watching it in action.If the language is only in written form, same thing - you experience how it is used on signs, packages, newspapers, etc  And if we are speaking of the past, and archeology reconstructs ancient sites, then it is possible to some extent to also interpret what the ancient writing probably says. For example a word above a doorway to which ancient women went to the washroom, probably meant 'women'.  You don't need too much in-formation this way, because you can then also compare words  in dif-ferent locations. For example a sign above a bin of apples that seems it should mean 'apples' can be confirmed to mean 'apples' of the same word is found on a jar of apple sauce. I think a grood Venetic example was to narrow down on the meaning of .e.go by noting that it did not have to be connected to a death,so it simply meant 'let remain, rest'. This kind of back and forth across all the archeological sites and all the archeological objects and all the inscriptions, can reveal a great deal that allows the decipherer to 'crack' the code.

MODERATOR: Enough about Paabo's methodolgy.Anyone can learn about it in detail in Paabo's book, which goes into great detail about it - a whole third of the book. Let us now address the two competing me-thodologies and results - the academic world interpreting Venetic in-scriptions with an assumption Venetic was Indo-European in Latin-like manner, and the newer Slovene hypothesis that the ancient Venetic language was Slavic, just like the south Baltic Venedi language was in the post-Roman period.

PRO: I think the Slovenes having an interest in their history, saw  that in the centuries after the Roman Empire,history was characterizing the Venedi in the region that is now Eastern Europe as Slavic, and be-cause Slovenia was close to the region where inscriptions of the Ve-netic language were found, they simply projected something that was true in historic times, backwards to before Roman times and to the an-cient inscriptions. They were there, so why not propose that hypothe-sis. It is as simple as that. Of course in reality, the Adriatic Venetic in-scriptions were found in northern Italy, and what were the Veneto Ita-lians northwest of Venice to think of arrogant Slovenes claiming that the inscriptions right there in their countryside were Slovenian-like? How did Slovenians have a greater right to the ancient Veneti than they? Scholars had already decided that the Adriatic Veneti inscrip-tions were Latin-like, ancient Latin, ancestral to the Romans. A politi-cal drama was created around the Adriatic Veneti and Paabo walked right into the middle of it around 2006.

MODERATOR: So supporters of Paabo, will have an opinion about both interpretations. Let us begin with the scholarly approach which used Latin and Indo-European linguistics.  PRO?

PRO: The traditional world of scholarly studies has the problem that it can dig itself into a hole from which it is difficult to get out. That's for example the case with the Uralic Languages Family theory invented a century ago that saw all those migrations from the Urals mentioned earlier.  Even though everyone outside linguistic institutions can see it is erroneous, or at least extremely flawed,a whole century has passed and it is still in place because departments of linguistics cannot let it go. That's because the academic world builds on what has come be-fore, so if what has come before is flawed, the flaws get propogated.  So there we have someone in the 1960's deciding why not assume the Venetic inscriptions are an archaic Latin. Thousands of manhours are spent by everyone who knew Latin seeking to crack the code, So many books and papers are created and published under the aus-pices of universities and the departments of linguistics. It produces a great inertial mass that cannot be ignored.So universities may listen to other ideas, but are unable to change what has been established be-cause of the great inertial mass that has developed around that area of study. But as far as what Paabo says in the book, the deciphering of Venetic with linguistics is a case of forcing a hypothesis onto the inscriptions, without the hypothesis every having been proven to be true. Indo-European words and grammar are simply being imposed on Venetic wherever it seemed to lead somewhere.

ANTI: But you said linguistics cannot analyze a language that has not yet been at least partially discovered.

PRO: However if you have already decided that Venetic belongs to a particular language family, you can not only push words on it, but also the linguistics of that particular language. Let us say that you were told that a set of ancient inscriptions were written in a language related to Latin,  would you not begin to study all the inscriptions in order to look for sounds similar to Latin word stems and grammatical suffixes? Yes. If you believe that scholars have decided and confirmed that Venetic is an archaic Latin, then you will not even consider that the decision scholars made at the outset actuallyt had no foundation - it as just a hunch, a hypothesis to test. It was just a whim. And yet if you believe, then you will assume failure to get results is simply your own fault ra-ther than the fault of the wrong hypothesis itself. With the Latin ap-proach in the academic world, all the inertia made the hypothesis so deeply entrenched that you can see trained historical linguists investi-gating and finding all kinds of linguistic shifts and whatnot, and not be-ing deterrred because they truly believe, The only way to backtrack from a hole,is to simply walk away,and not try to change the institution that created the hole.

ANTI: So now, what about the Slovene hypothesis?

PRO: It too used the method deciding arbitrarily  from some circum-stantial information and hopeful expectations, without ever having any real linguistic evidence, that Venetic was Slovene-like. The Slovene theory is driven by nationalism. That is their hole from which it is difficult to backtrack.

ANTI: But the Slovene theory is a comprehensive one that is mostly about the origins of Europe with Indo-European speakers, and that the Slovene language is simply closer to ancient Indo-European than other Indo-European families. The deciphering of the Venetic inscriptions is really only a tangent to that general theory.

PRO: That's great. It means The Slovene theory can allow that, just as in Spain, the Iberian natives allowed a Phoenician colony among them, the natives north of the Adriatic, similarly permitted the ancient Veneti to establish trade colonies even though they came from a com-pletely different culture and language.  As I said before, the mobile trader people and the settled farming naives could and did in ancient times, coexist, and benefitted both from the association.

ANTI: What about the fact that population genetics studies have shown that the region of the Venetic area shows no special indication of northern Veneti coming south and establishing the Venetic cities?

PRO: It doesn't take a large population. A small group can start some-thing and then it grows. Once the original Veneti had established their colonies, many of the surrounding people could abandon their moun-tain valleys and join the world of the Veneti. For comparison, that is how Hungary evolved.Genetic studies show that most Hungarians are genetically south Europeans from around the region. Genetic  con-nections in the direction from which the Hungarian culture came have been overhwelmed and diluted by the locals getting involved. Same thing with the Adriatic region.Some of the farmers came to the markets from their settlements, saw the excitement at the markets and they or their sons abandoned the mountain valleys and joined the world of trade, industry and commerce of the Veneti. Neither culture nor langu-age is genetic.Often each follows a completely different path. This mo- vement of genes, culture, and language between the VenetI and the indigenous peoples, makes the matter very complicated. Of course if we are identifying the Veneti according to language we can only look at the history of the language. Of course today one part is speaking the Veneto dialect of Italian, and the other part Slovene. It is obvious that the Veneto dialect developed when the original Veneti assimila-ted into the Roman Empire as the province of Venetia. It is equally obvious that the Venetic language, along the traditonal "Amber Route" that came south from the Danube  to the Adriatic, became assimilated into Slovene if the settled  people were Slavic/Slovene. Similarly the Roman Empire brought the end to all other large scale trader people, all assimilating into the peoples in the region of the colonies.

Phoenician and Greek colonies of Spain and Europe (apparently Greek traders went considerably north on the Rhone) all disappeared from assimilation, Similarly Venetic colonies created at strategic loca-tions  in southwest Britain, Brittany, Germany, southeast Baltic, at the Black Sea, where Slovenia is today, and of course at the Adriatic --- they all eventually melted into the region's peoples, becoming part of the settled peoples, although continuing for a while to practice trading activities as it was in their blood. The Venetians who emerged in the Renaissance, for example showed a resurgence of the Venetic tradi-tions with boats, industry, trade and commerce . They dominated the Mediterranean trade for centuries. It was in their blood even though they had assimilated into the Romans.

ANTI: What is Paabo's opinion regarding the Slovene theory of an original Slovene-like Europe?

PRO:  Paabo suggests in his prefaces and introductions that he does not care what the settled peoples did. He sees in the ANCIENT Vene-tic - before the Roman Age - as being part of their own large trade net-work, like  Phoenicians were, but strongly involved with the interior ri-vers like Loire, Rhone, Elbe, Danube, Vistula, Oder, etc as well as the northern seas and Atlantic coast. Just as the Phoenician language - a Semitic language - was localized to thier colonies and trade routes, so too the Venetic large scale language of Europe tended to be found along the major trade routes through Europe and the northern and Atlantic coast.  It follows that a toponymic analysis will find the ancient Finnic-Venetic language where the trade routes were most active. So it seems to me that he would be fine with a theory that pictures and original Indo-European civilization, but it is incorrect, he would say, to use the name "Veneti" to describe it, because civilized peoples were settled land peoples,while the word "Veneti" comes from Finnic VENE 'boat'. a word probably originated with VEENA 'instrument of water, plus plural -D,plus genitive,giving VENEDE,'(people) of the boats' (ac-tually used by Estonians and Finns for ALL boat using trade peoples going past their doorstep) The "Slovene" word probably is a pure co-incidence.Herodutus,the ancient Greek historian wrote that the Scyths called themselves "Scoloti".The word was probably altered by Greek, and could have been SCLOVI.  The word SLAV may have come from Finnic languages saying SCLOVI, and then SLOVENE would be  the Finnic ending -ENE on SLOV, giving the meaning 'in the nature of a SLOV or SLAV. This is in one of the versions of his book.

ANTI: So essentially, if the Slovene theory of the origins of Europe does not use the term "Veneti" for the name of the civilization, but something else, then that would be fine.

PRO: Yes, since there were two civilizations originally - the one crea-ted by large scale trade industry and commernce,and the one created by settlement and farming. The two were separate but closely depen-dent, as it is today. Today the international industry cannot exist with-out shipping and trade, as well as the permanent settled people and institutions. Of course, today, we are all situated under political nations that dictate what the national language and culture is,and today (since about the Roman Age) many different ways of life are carried out using the standard language of the nation that governs us.

MODERATOR:But let us remind ourselves that the book,THE VENETI LANGUAGE: An Ancient Language from a New Perspective, is about the language.Obviously all the issues that people have is because he found the Venetic language was Finnic. According to standard thin-king,how can this be possible!?? The issues do not seem to be about his methodology or results,but the fact he showed Venetic was Finnic. .



.



http://www.paabo.ca/veneti/VENETILANG2014.pdf

ww.paabo.ca

DOWNLOADABLE BOOK iS AVAILABLE

THE VENETIC LANGUAGE

THE VENETIC LANGUAGE: An Ancient Language

from a New Perspective: FINAL


This book is the culmination of research from 2002-2012 and several projects to document the results in book form. The first books were misunderstood because readers saw the project as simply projecting Estonian onto the Venetic texts just as had been done previously with forcing Latin, Slavic, etc  onto the Venetic. My pointing out similarities to Estonian was misinterpreted as coming up with the Estonian first and pushing it onto Venetic. It was very difficult to demonstrate that what I had done was to decipher Venetic directly from the raw materials and texts and that the results HAPPENED to resonate with Estonian and Finnish. This final book I believe succeeds in doing so. I rewrote a very detailed beginning to show exactly how it is possible to begin with the Venetic inscriptions in their contexts and infer meanings directly, in the same way that today a tourist can infer that the word on a red sign at the end of the road means 'stop'. Furthermore, although I had the results already in 2006 I needed to do more work. The only way one can prove that this interpreting of Venetic is correct is if  the grammar and word stems can be identified and if results agreeing with the grammar and word stems can be achieved for every Venetic sentence.   (Past interpreting has simply selected the ones that 'work' and grammar and word stem identification over all inscriptions has been avoided). This in the last 6 years I ensured a reasonable consistency in grammar and word stems, and achieving results ( even if a few were tentative) on ALL the inscriptions assembled for the study.  The hard reality is that it is impossible to prove Venetic belongs to a particular language family in direct ways. The only way it can be proven is to describe the Venetic language in great detail. As any scientist who reads the book must admit, it is practically impossible for anyone to invent such a detailed description of the Venetic language  and to come up with translations that are in such agreement with the decribed grammar and word stems, and so suitable to the objects on which they are written. I challenge anyone who reads the final documentation, and then to demonstrate that it is even remotely possible to invent it all.  These days we find linguists inventing langauges for movies, but such invention is free invention. The linguist can invent whatever he wants that follows the patterns of human language. But what if the linguist has to create a language that agrees with hundred or so  EXISTING texts? A scientist who understands the laws of probability will realize that the results presented here cannnot be invented. The following reproduces the CONTENTS of the book, so you can see what is covered, before you obtain the full book. I invite you to download the book whether you like the CONTENTS or not. It is filled with pictures of the objects and the writing.