On Ethno-Linguistic Definitions in The Baltic Region

[wilpuri]

For the benefit of my dear friend, Dr. Croccer.

In order to keep this discussion out of other threads, I'm going to make it clear once and for all that you cannot use linguistic and geographic terms as you please. They have definitions which will not be changed by a post on an internet forum.

Definition for Balt:

The Balts or Baltic peoples (Latvian: balti; Lithuanian: baltai; Latgalian: bolti), defined as speakers of one of the Baltic languages, a branch of the Indo-European language family, are descended from a group of Indo-European tribes who settled the area between lower Vistula and upper Daugava and Dnieper rivers on the southeast shore of the Baltic Sea.

The number of lakes and swamps in this area isolated the Balts, and as a result of this isolation the Baltic languages retain a number of conservative or archaic features. Among the Baltic peoples are modern Lithuanians, Latvians and Latgalians -- all Eastern Balts -- as well as the Prussians, Yotvingians and Galindians, whose languages and cultures are now extinct.

The term Balts was created by German linguist Georg Nesselmann in 1845 to describe similar ethnic groups that live near Baltic Sea.

wiki

That is the defintion of Balt. Estonians are not Balts, as you will see below:

Estonians (Estonian: eestlased, previously maarahvas) are a Finnic people closely related to the Finns and inhabiting, primarily, the country of Estonia. The Estonians speak a Finno-Ugric language, known as Estonian. Although Estonia is traditionally grouped as one of the Baltic countries, Estonians are linguistically and ethnically unrelated to the Baltic peoples of Latvia and Lithuania.

wiki

So Baltic cannot refer to both Balto-Finnic and Baltic.

Croccer said:

"With Baltic (a rather unaccurate and confusing term because it refers to two things) and Balt I refer to both Baltic-Finnish and Baltic-Slavic (the accurate term for what you call ''Balts'') in a national and geographic sense, NOT, I repeat NOT in the linguistic sense."

You cannot use these terms as you please, because you cannot make up the definitions. I could decide that the word "foot" means "hat" and go around saying that I like wearing feet on my head and I would be bound to come across some strange looks.

As for the "not in a linguistic sense," it would be good to see where the argument started.

You specifically said:
"Finns are quite related to some Balts, both linguistically and genetically. It wasn't a big mistake."

You edited that half an hour later into this:

"Finns are quite related to some Balts, both linguistically and genetically. Mainly Estonians. It wasn't a big mistake."

And as I've shown, Estonians are not Balts.

I will add one more definition, namely that of Balto-Slavic (which is not the same as Baltic, as Dr. Croccer claims).

The hypothetical Balto-Slavic language group consists of the Baltic and Slavic language subgroups of the Indo-European family. The grouping is due to a reconstructed Proto-Balto-Slavic dialect continuum or just common language traits acquired by close contact of speakers of ancestral languages.

There is some debate as to the nature of the reconstruction among linguists. Opinions range from an actual genetic unity to a more incidential "period of common language and life" with the strong similarities due to prolongued language contact or even total original separation.

Geographic
distribution: Eastern and Northern Europe
Genetic
classification: Indo-European
Balto-Slavic
Subdivisions:
Baltic
Slavic

THE END.

[Simetrical]

You can use whatever terms you like, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you're clear about it. Of course, it's stupid to use them in a nonstandard fashion, but if you're explicit about what you mean, no actual problem need arise, if others are similarly careful.

Way, way too many disputes are due to people using different definitions and not bothering to figure out what the other person means. Is homosexuality a choice? Well, if by homosexuality you mean "the tendency to voluntarily engage in sex with individuals of the same gender", then yes, it's a choice. If by homosexuality you mean "the tendency to be attracted to individuals of the same gender", then clearly no, it's not a choice (attractions are not choices: one does not consciously and explicitly decide to be attracted to something). Yet how many man-hours have been spent arguing that point?

It's fairly natural that some people will define things differently from others. In some cases, such as the previous example, multiple definitions are widely accepted. (I've seen the term racism similarly argued over: does it cover any racial discrimination, or just the belief that a race is inferior?) In other cases, one person is using a weird definition, but by and large that doesn't affect the issue being discussed, if everyone is aware of the discrepancy.

So, those are my thoughts on potatoes, personally. Where by potatoes of course I mean "the use of definitions that are contrary to commonly-accepted ones".

[wilpuri]

To say that Finns are linguistically related to Balts is wrong, plain and simple.

The Baltic states

Do you know the difference between nation and state? Language and state?

Again, I refered to the geographic and national nature, not the linguistic nature.

Kind of weird to compare a language to a geographic location and say that they are linguistically related.

Also, Baltic-Slavic is a more modern and accurate description, like I already said and that you don't mention.

Wrong again!

Baltic Slavic is not more accurate because it is disputed and it includes Slavic languages, having two sub-groups Baltic and Slavic.

[Dr. Croccer]

wiki

That is the defintion of Balt. Estonians are not Balts, as you will see below:

Again, I refered to the geographic and national nature, not the linguistic nature.

Also, Baltic-Slavic is a more modern and accurate description, like I already said and that you don't mention.

wiki

So Baltic cannot refer to both Balto-Finnic and Baltic.

Actually it can. As in Baltic states, Baltic inhabitants. How hard is it to understand a simple thing.

Croccer said:

"With Baltic (a rather unaccurate and confusing term because it refers to two things) and Balt I refer to both Baltic-Finnish and Baltic-Slavic (the accurate term for what you call ''Balts'') in a national and geographic sense, NOT, I repeat NOT in the linguistic sense."

You cannot use these terms as you please, because you cannot make up the definitions.

I'm not making up anything my friend.

I could decide that the word "foot" means "hat" and go around saying that I like wearing feet on my head and I would be bound to come across some strange looks.

You keep surprising me Wilpuri.

As for the "not in a linguistic sense," it would be good to see where the argument started.

You specifically said:
"Finns are quite related to some Balts, both linguistically and genetically. It wasn't a big mistake."

You edited that half an hour later into this:

"Finns are quite related to some Balts, both linguistically and genetically. Mainly Estonians. It wasn't a big mistake."

And as I've shown, Estonians are not Balts.

And you completely miss the point. Again. With Balts, again, I refer to people that inhabit the Baltic. I used the term because writing ''both the Baltic-Finns and Baltic-Slavs'' was too long and I use the NATIONAL AND GEOGRAPHIC definitions. In the same way I refer to inhabitants of Scandinavia as, shock horror, Scandinavians.

Also, read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltics

[Dr. Croccer]

Which is good because I'M NOT SAYING THAT. Not in the way you mean it that is. Again, don't try to mold my post into yours. And please try to stop gloating of something you have no basis on.

Just get the simple point that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Americans as in US inhabitants only but Southern ones and Canucks too, capiche?

[wilpuri]

Which is good because I'M NOT SAYING THAT. Not in the way you mean it that is. Again, don't try to mold my post into yours. And please try to stop gloating of something you have no basis on.

Just get the simple point that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Americans as in US inhabitants only but Southern ones and Canucks too, capiche?

Well if you'd actually say what you mean and not try to explain in even more confusing terms later on, my job would be much easier.

But that's what you said. You said "Finns are closely related to Balts".

Then you said that what you mean was some Balts. Which Balts? The Estonians. You see, you were only using Balt as a geographic expression, but the thing is, its not a geographic expression. Baltic is, Balt isn't. Finland is, Finn isn't. Russia is, Russian isn't.

Then you tried to explain that because Estonia is included into the Baltic countries, its inhabitants would be Balts. Wrong again. You tried to prove this with a wiki article on the Baltic states. Let's see what the article says just a couple of lines below your quotation:

Estonians and the Livonian people in Latvia are descended from the Finnic peoples, sharing closely related languages and a common cultural ancestry. The Latvians and Lithuanians, linguistically and culturally related to each other, are descended from the Balts, an Indo-European people and culture.

It is simple, but its not me who's not-getting it.

[Dr. Croccer]

Well if you'd actually say what you mean and not try to explain in even more confusing terms later on, my job would be much easier.

Oh dear lawd.

I've explained it at least 4 times.

But that's what you said. You said "Finns are closely related to Balts".

No. I said ''Balts are quite related to Finns, both linguistically and genetically. Especially Estonians.''

It's quite easy to see to which ''Balts'' I'm refering to.

Then you said that what you mean was some Balts. Which Balts? The Estonians.

Not only the Estonians but a lot of Northern Baltic dialects as well, like Karelian and Ingrian.

You see, you were only using Balt as a geographic expression,

Again, no. Another testimony that you don't read my posts good enough. I said ''geographic AND national''. With ''geographic'' I refer to the Baltic region and the Baltic countries and with the ''national'' I refer to the Baltic countries as well, inhabitants of said countries and the national area of the Baltic in the same way as in the Benelux and the former USSR.

but the thing is, its not a geographic expression. Baltic is, Balt isn't. Finland is, Finn isn't. Russia is, Russian isn't.

That's where ''national'' kicks in yo.

Then you tried to explain that because Estonia is included into the Baltic countries, its inhabitants would be Balts. Wrong again.

No. Poland is located in Eastern Europe and they are both Poles, Slavs and Eastern Europeans. Belgium is located in Western Europe or the Benelux and they still manage to be Belgian, speak Flemish as well as Wallonian (Same case as with ''Balts''. I refer to both as Belgians yet both have a completely different language) and are Germanic.

You tried to prove this with a wiki article on the Baltic states. Let's see what the article says just a couple of lines below your quotation:

It doesn't prove anything that isn't countered by above. Actually it proves that Balt as a linguistic term is outdated and confusing by saying:

are descended from the Balts, an Indo-European people and culture.

And even if my definition is wrong, It's still easy to see what I mean. My point is proven nonetheless.

[joerd9]

It's none of my business, but I'm curious, therefore a question:
Do finnish and/or estonian people have sort of a problem with being too closely associated with their neighbour people? It looks a bit as if that was the case. If so, why? Historical reasons? Thx.

[wilpuri]

No. I said ''Balts are quite related to Finns, both linguistically and genetically. Especially Estonians.''

That is the edited version, and it very well shows where you went wrong. Estonians are not Balts. I have posted the definition of Balts here on several occassions, and Estonians are not included. NOT INCLUDED.

Not only the Estonians but a lot of Northern Baltic dialects as well, like Karelian and Ingrian.

Both Karelian and Ingrian are Finnic, not Baltic. Following your logic, Portuguese is an "Americanic" language as its spoken in South America. Just to demonstrate.

I refer to both as Belgians yet both have a completely different language) and are Germanic.

That's because There are both Walloons and Flemings in Belgium, but a Fleming is not a Walloon, nor is a Walloon Germanic.

You don't know what you are talking about when will you see that. Please, please, in the name of my own sanity, try to understand.

It's none of my business, but I'm curious, therefore a question:
Do finnish and/or estonian people have sort of a problem with being too closely associated with their neighbour people? It looks a bit as if that was the case. If so, why? Historical reasons? Thx.

Depends who you ask, but generally Estonians and Finns are on very good terms. There is some resentment from the Estonian side, however, because of rich [compraratively] & arrogant Finnish booze-tourists, and some Finns have the false perception that Estonians are somehow "half-russkies", due to their association with the Soviet Union. But in general, we are on excellent terms and I don't think there is a problem. I personally am very fond of Estonia and Estonians.

[Dr. Croccer]

That is the edited version, and it very well shows where you went wrong. Estonians are not Balts. I have posted the definition of Balts here on several occassions, and Estonians are not included. NOT INCLUDED.

Again, that is the linguistic term. The one I'm not refering to. How hard

Both Karelian and Ingrian are Finnic, not Baltic. Following your logic, Portuguese is an "Americanic" language as its spoken in South America. Just to demonstrate.

Again, geographic. I was meanly refering to the Gulf of Finland and northern-Estonian.

Of course Karelian and Ingrian are Finnic-Baltic, that's my damn point.

And you obviously have no idea what my logic is, if you did then none of this pathetic drama would ensue.

That's because There are both Walloons and Flemings in Belgium, but a Fleming is not a Walloon, nor is a Walloon Germanic.

In a strictly linguistic sense of course. National, geogrpahically and genetically not.

You don't know what you are talking about when will you see that. Please, please, in the name of my own sanity, try to understand.

What in the love of god are you talking about. Of course I know what I'm talking about, my earlier posts, my damn points for christ's sake, already reflect on this.

Maybe you should review my posts, because that isn't what I said. I said that SOME Balts are linguistically related to Finnish. Both you and Vampire already screamed no without any specification. I never called Baltic-Slavic languages (Latvian, Lithuanian) related to Finnic-Baltic (Estonian, various dialects).

Righto, good that I never called Latvian Finnic huh? Excuse me, but do you both actually read my posts? You try to enlighten me on a subject I already discussed about and you, for some reason beyond me, asume that I called Latvian Finnish and Finnish Baltic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic-Finnic
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/finnish-intro.html

The Finnish language, spoken mainly in Finland but also by people of Finnish origin in Sweden and other countries, belongs to the Fenno-Ugric group of languages, which is a part of the Uralian family of languages. Other Uralian languages include: Estonian, which is rather near to Finnish; Hungarian, which is a little different from Finnish, with a number of related words; and several languages spoken in Russia, mostly by small ethnic groups.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...icolors%29.png
Notice Estonia and Finland are both Uralian languages as is the Karelian language.

The Baltic-Fennic languages (Estonian, Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, South Estonian, Vepsian, Votic) have mixed a bit with the Baltic-Slavic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian) and have took some things from eachother. The Baltic-Slavic languages are possibly one of the most related Indo-European languages to Fenno-Ugric. Not by much though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Permic_languages




What's next, Turkish isn't related to Mongolic?

That's good, because I didn't say that. I said that Balts (no specification) and Finnis were quite related. And it is hardly comparable to calling German a Latin language, more like saying that English is related to Middle Dutch. If several Baltic languages aren't Finnic-Ugric, then what it are Estonian, Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, South Estonian, Vepsian and Votic?

Also, it seems you already understood it a bit a while ago so I don't know what you're brabbling on about.

Ok, I now see where Croccer went wrong. He thought that both Finnic and Baltic are Baltic languages. They're not. He has mistaken the geographical denominator "Baltic" in "Baltic-Finnic" for something else.

Though you made a mistake with the ''misunderstood''.

THE END


.....?

[Trax]

To further complicate the matter I would say that Estonians and Latvians are culturally and racially pretty much identical, much more so than Estonians and Finns for example.

[wilpuri]

To further complicate the matter I would say that Estonians and Latvians are culturally and racially pretty much identical, much more so than Estonians and Finns for example.

Well in my experience, at least when discussing phenotype, Estonians tend to be fairer and more Nordid, more so than Finns perhaps, while most Latvians I've seen have been darker and perhaps more Baltic. But I'm no expert, just some observations.

Then again, I have very little first-hand experience of any of the Baltic peoples. I've met a lot of Estonians when working on various construction sites, factories, refineries and the like, but there aren't that many Balts here.

[Dr. Croccer]

I don't know. Wilpuri is Finnish himself and has said that he knows a lot of Estonians so he can elaborate I suppose.