Talk:Uralic

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

There is no Karelian (classical, Olonets nor Ludian) in IB ;) There are only Karalan dialects of Nassian.

More, AFAIR from our chatting with Jussi, there is for sure Votian and Vepsian, but rather no Ingrian. Problem is, that territories on *here's* Ingrians were populated quite early by Slavs *there*. Unfortunatelly, Ingrians even did not constitute *there*. Isn't it against QSS (I somehow feel it is so)?

Võro and Seto are dialects of Estonian; thus either they should have each distinct line or none. -- Jan II.

Let me first point out that I made this template only because I was in the mood for making a template, not because I claim any knowledge about the situation of the Uralic languages in IB. I'll leave all that in the hands of you, Santeri and Ferko.
If there's no Ingrian, that leads to another problem: how do we explain the Votian-Ingrian Autonomous District in that case? It looks like we have another example of conflicting QSS here!
As for Võro-Seto vs. Võro ánd Seto, I'll take your word for that. I merely copied what Ferko had done. --IJzeren Jan 06:49, 10 November 2005 (PST)

I have found the original message of Ferko, which constitutes the existence of Izhorians and thus VIAO. It is from June 24, 2003. I failed to notice it that time. Mea culpa. This supposition was already in contrary with Nassian existence; while they *now* occupy even less territory than it was in 2003 before Jussi corrected my extent of Slavic inhabitation of space around Two Big Lakes.

What to do? Let there be just Votian Autonomous District as Vepsians do live in Ladogo-Onegian AD? I cannot withdraw with Nassians from Ingrian isthmus, as they were sent there by Jussi ;) -- Jan II.

Can't we just assume a small amount of Ingrians, or the Ingrians living a bit further west, or so? --IJzeren Jan 06:50, 10 November 2005 (PST)
Good idea, let move them little bit more west, closer to Votians; eastern of Pityer and that would make it. -- Jan II.
Of course, we can't make anything official without the consensus of Ferko. --IJzeren Jan
No problem on my side ;) We anyway expect some more answers from Ferko. -- Jan II.
All right, some thoughts from me on this. :)

AAAAAARRGH!!! (Hehe.)

The names Ingrian (inkeri, inkerilainen) and Izhorian (isuri, isurilaiset) are NOT interchangeable. There may be a few Ingrians (AKA Ingrian Finns) in the Votian-Izhorian AD (Vod'sko-Izhorskii AO), if they exist, but they're just a very small handful. The homeland of the Izhorians is the same land as of the Votians, only distributed in different villages. Thus, there is absolutely no conflict between the existence of the Vod'sko-Izhorskii AO and Nassian presence in the Ingrian isthmus. - Ferko

Well, I am not an expert, but I know one. Santeri is of opposite meaning, if there is no Karelian, there is no Izhorian, since it is the youngest language in the family and stemed on Karelian; citing Jussi: "The existence of Karelian is also a precondition for the existence of Izhorian, because Old Izhorian was a Votic-influenced branch of Proto-Karelian."
So there might be some other Izhorians (developed differently), but not those Izhorians of *here*. They might be some branch of Votes under different influence (not Karelian). Jan II. 00:42, 9 January 2006 (PST)
Personal tools
discussion