|
|
how old are the Slavic languages and how did they evolve?
Slavic languages are of indo-European origin. How much of their origin could be related to the Sanskrit, though?
Why are some of them using a Latin alphabet while other Cyrillic?
Catholic Slavs use the Latin alphabeth, while the Orthodox use the Greek-inspired Cyrillic one.
Acctually the Catholic Church has always been using Latin alphabet because of the Rome - the capitol. Constantinople (Istanbul) is the centre of Orthodox Church. In this part of Europe Cyrillic was invented and used.
When the country in Middle-age was christened The Church brought the education, administration's structures and the alphabet. For example Czech republic was christened by Great Moravia (I am not sure if it's correct english name), Poland by Czech Rep., Lithuania by Poland etc. That's why e.g. Lithuania also uses latin alphabet. And this is the story about the differences between alphabets of Slavic languages. So it isn't exactly the truth that the choice of alphabet was based on the religion. There was no other way - if the country chose the Catholic Church, it sent to the country their own clergy. Almost only they were well-educated and knew any kind of alphabet. Then the whole country started to use it. P.S. Sorry for my today's English :P
Brennus said:
"The Baltic and Slavic languages together probably are the closet relatives of Old Persian and Sanskrit in the Indo-European language super family even though there is a fringe element of linguists who dispute this. " Thank you, that's the answer I was looking for. Thank you, Fredrik and Jakubik,as well! You brought up information what I didn't have before. I appreciate that! Speaking about Russians/White Russians: There are few istorians suspecting that they ancesotors were the Vikings. If this is true, how come that Russians are speaking a Slavic language and the North Europeans, a Germanic one? Is this theory of Russians as Viking decedents, proved to be false?
In addition - Varangians began the Rurykowicz dynasty (sorry I know only my native name of this dynasty, nevertheless it's still slavic, so similar to original one). Founder of that dynasty was called Ruryk who was obviously Vagarian. Rurykowicz dynasty ruled Kievan Rus'.
Brennus, Jakubik,
Thank you very much, both of you! Brennus; now, I have the answer what I was looking for and I really appreciate that! Best regards!
What all of you have written is "western" look on the history, which was written by Germans when Peter the Great "opened" Russia (the sence of it is simple - look these stupid Slavs even could'nt make their state without "true Aryans" blablabla), what was in reality NOBODY knows except the fact that Russia was a true prosperious state even before Ryurik (he was actually half Slav).
The Viking influence is WAY overrated. A few vikings coming down the coast or down the river couldn´t have much of an influence in Russia, England, Ireland or anywhere else. Fortunately there are new genetic studies revealing that some of these myths are just that: myths. And it will be very hard to argue with them. It´s becoming more and more clear that all the invasions in Western Europe barely changed the genetic imprint left by the people from the neolithic and even before that. I even wander how much viking blood is there in Sweden or Norway.
What kind of invasion in Western Europe do you mean? Invasion of the Vikings or the other tribes?
There were plenty of invasions, just to name a few: huns in Eastern Europe, Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Germanic Tribes in Western Europe and so on... But I never heard of any Viking invasion. For an invasion you need at least three guys. Two vikings does not make an invasion. What I am trying to say here is that the invasions in Western Europe from the British Islands to Spain did not affect more than than 20% the genes of those countries. The culture is another matter. And I'll go further to say that influence of a few 1000 vikings did not change anything in Western Europe, culturally or genetically.
I think that the point is not that they influenced genetically on people in Western Europe or made a king of "big invasion", but they might have started the dynasty of people who ruled Kievan Rus' and built the foundation of this country. The similar example could be the ruler-Piast from the tribe Polanie (actually legendary ruler) who began the Piast Dynasty (Piastowie) in Poland. Obviously Polanie weren't related to Vikings, this is just an example how legendary ruler (rulers) is often said to start the dynasty or make the foundation of a state(country).
Another example is the rule of proto-Bulgarians in Bulgaria at the very beginning of the existing of this country. Slavic tribes were ruled by nation which had come from Central Asia. After just one generation the proto-Bulgarian tribes were assimilated by the local Slavs. This is my opinion and answer to your point of view Skeptical. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post (There might be some aberrations, because English is still foreign language for me :) )
Skeptical
««What I am trying to say here is that the invasions in Western Europe from the British Islands to Spain did not affect more than than 20% the genes of those countries. »» When did this invasion take place?
Skeptical, forget the above question. I had read the post not the whole thread.
|