446 SKRBH 37 Dragomira Płońska i Adam Smoliński. Odezwa w sprawie przygotowania podręcznika dziejów Pra-Słowian i Pra-Słowiańszczyzny, Słowian i Słowiańszczyzny, jako jednoczesne wezwanie, zaproszenie i kolejny bodziec do współdziałania i współtworzenia

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMPYTeIWcAAPGir.jpg


Dnia 25.03.2017 otrzymałem taką wiadomość:

„Nie wiem czy wiesz ale pisze książkę. Już jestem blisko końca. Chciałabym, aby w internecie dyskutowano o niej i o turbosłowiańskich książkach w ogóle. Dlatego mam prośbę abyś opublikował to co jest w załącznikach. W pierwszym jest apel Adama, napisany specjalnie pod nasze blogi, na blogu Białczyńskiego już o tym było http://bialczynski.pl/2017/03/ Niestety, przekazał inicjatywę rudaweb http://rudaweb.pl/index.php/ a tam dyskusja zboczyła na inne tory. Jeżeli ci nie odpowiada publikowanie tego, to na tym mi aż tak nie zależy. Na opublikowaniu tego co jest w drugim załączniku zależy mi o wiele bardziej. Jeżeli puścisz to bez wcześniejszej publikacji tego co Adam napisał, to chyba będziesz musiał skrobnąć chociaż zdanie, o co chodzi z ta moją książką. Oczywiście, możesz skasować to: „Bardzo proszę o nie wpisywanie się pod tym z wątkami nie na temat.” Zdanie, było pisane pod bloga Białczyńskiego, po tym co się tam działo. Apel Adama możesz opublikować nawet od razu. Jeśli zaś chodzi o fragmenty mojej książki to prosiłabym o nie publikowanie tego przed poniedziałkiem, bo wtedy opublikuje Białczyński. Oczywiście nie musisz się z tym spieszyć, jeśli ci teraz nie pasuje, jak odłożysz na kilka dni to nic się nie stanie. Jeśli w ogóle nie opublikujesz to tez się nie obrażę na wieki. 🙂

Pozdrawiam

Dragomira

…..

W pierwszym odruchu miałem napisać w tytule tego wpisu, coś jak „apel”, itp,.. ale następna myśl, jaka przyszła mi do głowy była jak sążnisty policzek wymierzony samemu sobie. To co pomyślałem „brzmiało” coś jakby:

„Ty parszywie leniwy, bezmózgi, pół-słowiański śmierdzący gnojku, jak śmiesz!!!”… i w następnej sekundzie moje palce śmigały już w klawiaturze zwrot „apel wyrazy bliskoznaczne”…

http://synonim.net/wyrazy-bliskoznaczne-do-s%C5%82owa-apel

Tyle propagandy,.. bo tak naprawdę to wklepałem coś innego,.. bo wiem, że jeśli użyje się magicznego zaklęcia „cokolwiek synonimy”,… to niestety otrzyma się więcej wyników wyszukiwania, patrz:

http://synonim.net/synonim/apel

list otwarty, obwieszczenie, odezwa, ogłoszenie, orędzie, oświadczenie, oznajmienie, przesłanie, stwierdzenie, twierdzenie, wiadomość, wypowiedź, zawiadomienie, narada, nasiadówka, obrady, posiedzenie, sejmik, spęd, spotkanie, zbiórka, zebranie, zgromadzenie, zjazd, zlot, odwołanie się, orędzie o coś, prośba, uchwała, wezwanie, wołanie, list zbiorowy, wniosek, zew, pismo, podanie, posłanie, nakaz, pozew, pozwanie, zaproszenie, zawołanie, przywołanie, błaganie, życzenie, orzeczenie, powiedzenie, przemówienie, uroczyste ogłoszenie, uroczyste oznajmienie, wygłoszenie, wypowiedzenie, wyraz, roszczenie, warunek, wskazanie, zalecenie, odwołanie, podanko, powództwo, skarga, odprawa, bodziec, bodziec do działania, napęd, odruch, pęd, potrzeba, sygnał, zamiłowanie, zapał, proszenie, żebranie, odczytanie nazwisk…

Po co to wszystko napisałem? Ano po to, że uważam, że napisanie tego podręcznika dodatkowo z UŻYCIEM PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKICH I SŁOWIAŃSKICH SŁÓW BĘDZIE WIELOKROTNIE LEPSZE I WYWRZE ZNACZĄCO WIĘKSZY WPŁYW NA NASZĄ RZECZYWISTOŚĆ… niż kiedy powstanie on jako kolejny ćwierć-polski, ćwierć-łaciński, ćwierć-angielski i ćwierć-niemiecki biuletyn, deklaracja, enucjacja, exposé, informacja, komunikat, manifest, memoriał, nota, notyfikacja, proklamacja, rezolucja, uniwersał, konferencja, kongres, konwencja, konwentykiel, manicha, mityng, pikieta, plenum, sesja, tete-a-tete, enuncjacja, petycja, apelacja, edykt, ekspresja, zadeklamowanie, dezyderat, dyrektywa, postulat, propozycja, apel poranny, suplika, entuzjazm, impuls, inicjatywa, szwung, itp…

Robię to co robię, żeby KAŻDĄ SŁOWIANKĘ I KAŻDEGO SŁOWIANINA POCHWYCIŁ W SWE SZPONY NIESMAK, a nie zasrany absmak, do NIE-SŁOWIAŃSKICH WYRAZÓW I ZWROTÓW!!!

Wyrażałem się o tym wielokrotnie, np. tu, czy tu,.. itd i będę to jak pijany zapomnianymi drganiami matczynych i ojcowskich słów, w kółko, ciągle, raz po raz, nieustanie do skutku każdej Słowiance i każdemu Słowianinowi powtarzał i przemocą jak trzeba wbijał do naszych jeszcze pół-słowiańskich rozumów…

SŁOWIANKI I SŁOWIANIE MYŚLĄ, MÓWIĄ I PISZĄ W ŚWIĘTYM PRASTARYM JĘZYKU PRZODKÓW, A NIE W JĘZYKU NASZYCH TYCH CZY TAMTYCH NAJEŹDŹCÓW I WROGÓW!!!

SŁAWA NASZYM SŁOWIAŃSKIM PRZODKOM, NASZEMU PRADAWNEMU PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKIEMU DZIEDZICTWU I JĘZYKOWI!!! 🙂

Czytaj dalej

Reklamy

3 thoughts on “446 SKRBH 37 Dragomira Płońska i Adam Smoliński. Odezwa w sprawie przygotowania podręcznika dziejów Pra-Słowian i Pra-Słowiańszczyzny, Słowian i Słowiańszczyzny, jako jednoczesne wezwanie, zaproszenie i kolejny bodziec do współdziałania i współtworzenia

  1. Wiem, że to dla wielu wolnych umysłów straszne i straszliwie niezrozumiałe, ale lepiej zapoznać się z tymi danymi, jak i z komentarzami napisanymi tam, zwłaszcza te od Goga, który twierdzi, podobnie do mnie, że BYŁY DWIE FALE OSIEDLEŃCZE ZE „STEPU” (wg mnie z laso-stepu!).

    Pierwsza „Karelczycy” z ich starym R1a (tym, czy tamtym), a potem druga, czyli już potomkowie ich ale zmieszani z „armeńskimi kobietami”, którzy przynieśli ze sobą hodowlę np. koni, i uprawę ziemi!!!

    Zmieszali się na stepie nadczarnomorskim, rozmnożyli, bo mieli „nadwyżkę żywności”, bo nie musieli TYLKO POLOWAĆ… i „zalali” ziemie swoich „karelskich” Przodków… To wyjaśnia też BRAK PODKŁADU JĘZYKOWEGO W JĘZYKU SŁOWIAŃSKIM I ZAPOŻYCZENIA OD PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKIE (GiL+GaL / Ko”L”+Ko) W J. KARTWELSKICH I SEMICKICH!!!

    „Karelczycy” wędrowali przez pustkę, pozostali w pustce, a potem tylko zalała ich ludność pochodna od R1a M417, ale nie R1b, bo ci „wyszli” ze stepu „tzw. droga południową R1b”, przez Skałkaz, Anatolię, Egipt, itd. Kamerun jest chyba znacznie starszy, więc byłaby to wcześniejsza fala R1b, patrz także Villbruna!!!

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-32990.html

    New map of Yamna admixture (Eurogenes Steppe K10)

    Maciamo 18-10-16, 15:58
    I finally found some time to make the map of Yamna admixture using the data from Eurogenes Steppe K10. There was no data for some countries, so I had to guess based on neighbouring countries or isolated samples reported on forums. That is the case for Portugal, Ireland, Wales, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia and Azerbaijan.

    I would especially need regional samples from all over Iberia. There are huge variations from nearly 0% of Yamna among some Basques to 16% in some Spaniards (but their region of origin is unknown). The Eurogenes data just shows a lower percentage in northern Spain, but that is not very helpful as Galicia, Cantabria and Catalonia probably have very different levels.

    Regional data from Britain, France and Germany are also welcome.

    Even though Yamna chieftains from kurgan belonged almost exclusively to R1b, among modern Europeans it is the Uralic, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and North Caucasian people who inherited the highest share of Yamna ancestry, not Western Europeans, who now have the highest percentage of haplogroup R1b. One of the reasons for this is that R1b arrived in Western Europe after over a thousand years of genetic dilution through intermarriages with Balkanic and Central European people. In contrast, in the eastern half of Europe, R1b lost its position of dominance and was replaced by R1a and N1c lineages, starting from the Catacomb culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and continuing until the Middle Ages. Nevertheless Yamna ancestry was passed maternally in the Steppe and in neighbouring populations, which explains the high Yamna admixture from the Baltic to the North Caucasus.

    Maciamo19-10-16, 08:55
    I disagree, imo it makes more sense that Basques got their ~80+ of R1b from 25% of their ancestry than just 0-5% of it. So much founder effect is just ridiculous. Not even in India is the aDNA of the R1a bearers so low.

    No it doesn’t make sense because the Basque R1b-M153 is only 2800 years old and has a TMRCA of 2500 years. Most Basques belong to the subclade just under that, with a TMRCA of 2100 years. This means that the Basque R1b is a very recent phenomenon starting in Roman times. But who knows, R1b might have continued to expand little by little each generations among the Basques for over 1000 years before reaching today’s frequencies. I now believe that the Basque only got their R1b very gradually over the last 2500 years and that it has nothing to do with Bronze Age PIE invasions. That has the benefit to explain why they kept speaking Basque. I don’t know why R1b increased gradually. Maybe increased fertility compared to the native male lineages (I2-M26 + G2a ?), or a noble lineage of some sort. It was probably a combination of factors. Anywau, if R1b entered the Basque gene pool from, say, neighbouring Aquitaine or Castille c. 500 BCE or even 100 BCE, it could have been autosomally low in Yamna ancestry (say 15-20%). After diluting it slowly over 1000 to 2000 more years with relatively pure Basque women, there would be very little Yamna left, surely under 5%. If Haak et al. are right and the Basque have 27% of Yamna, then it becomes much harder to explain with such a young TMRCA for their R1b, especially that Haak found 5% less Yamna among other Spaniards (22%). Spanish branches of DF27 are between 3500 and 4400 years old, so Late Bronze Age, and match the arrival of foreign Bronze Age cultures like El Argar. So there is no doubt that R1b was in many parts of Spain long before it spread among the Basques.

    It’s good that you mention India. Indian Brahmins have at most 15-20% of Steppe DNA. In fact, since they descend from Sintashta rather than Yamna, their Steppe DNA should be higher in EHG than CHG. Using Dodecad K12, they have about 18% of East European + West European + Mediterranean, but the latter also includes non-IE Neolithic ancestry. Using K12b, they have only 5% of Atlantic_Med + North European, but that doesn’t include the Gedrosian that came with the IE. So depending on the calculator, we get somewhere between 7 and 18% of Steppe admixture. Unfortunately neither the Haak paper nor the Steppe K10 data have any Indian sample. But the Indo-Aryans invaded India from 1800 BCE, almost exactly at the same time as IE invaded Iberia with El Argar. And we get a similar percentage of Steppe admixture (10-20%) both in Spaniards and upper-caste Indians. But it took another 1500 years before R1b-M153 started spreading among the Basques, so a considerably lower Steppe admixture is to be expected.

    MarkoZ 19-10-16, 10:42
    People with Baltic Hunter Gatherer genomes said they’re WHG. Before that I thought they’d be EHG admixed as well. The error lies in assuming that the Baltic populations are the result of a simple coalescence of Neolithic Corded Ware and Mesolithic elements. We already know that North-Eastern Europe received substantial input from further east by way of Russia, since N1c is the dominant paternal marker in all North-Eastern populations barring Belarusians. The preponderance of this marker transcends linguistic and national affiliation.

    Olympus Mons
    19-10-16, 11:53
    Finally! 🙂 I’ve been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper „Massive Migration from the steppe”, was incorrect.

    If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven’t yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn’t that inflate the „Yamnaya” percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?

    YES. What I don’t get it is why every time I raise those options I get immediately eviscerated by ten guys (especially at eurogenes!).

    Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit.

    If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?

    Also how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?

    Tomenable 19-10-16, 14:04
    so how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?

    Kunda and Narva cultures = no any R1a and no any EHG, 100% WHG and their Y-DNA was haplogroup I. Today areas formerly occupied by Kunda and Narva cultures are dominated by R1a and N1c haplogroups.

    UWAGA!!! Nowe dane z 2017r PRZECZĄ TEMU, patrz:
    https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/34-polnocna-droga-r1a-czyli-min-koniec-bredni-o-tzw-starozytnosci-jezyka-litewskiego-pochodzeniu-tzw-scytow-tocharow-itd/

    Goga 19-10-16, 18:48
    But the map I made was only for the ‚Steppe’ component, Then you should rename it into the ‚map of Steppe admixture’. Since it doesn’t correspondent well with the ‚Yamnaya admixture’. At this moment your map is MISLEADING and full of contradictions. Like now according to your map there is more Yamnaya admixture in Finno-Ugric/Saami people than European Indo-Europeans. Like you said Yamnaya Admixture is more than Steppe Admixture.

    Steppe admixture in NorthEastern Europe existed even before the arrival of late second stage Yamnaya PIE. So, a lot Steppe ancestry in NorthEastern Europe has nothing to do with second stage Proto-Indo-European speakers from Yamnaya.

    Yamnaya = Steppe + NorthWest Asia.

    So, you should rename your map into ‚map of Steppe admixture’ or change your percentages about the Yamnaya ancestry.

    Goga19-10-16, 19:04
    I knew N1c couldn’t be a Baltic hunter gatherer. N1c, Siberian admixture, and Uralic languages in Northeast Europe all probably have the same post-CWC source. Then again its arrival might be different for different regions.I started to think that to, before I realized that this map is WRONG on many levels. After seeing his map I started to believe that Saami have more Corded Ware admixture than Norwegians, lol. But I was mislead by a wrong map. It was stupid of me, not to make additional examination of data.

    So, hold on a minute. The map of Maciamo doesn’t hold any ground and is at least misleading. I don’t think Maciamo tried to mislead us on purpose. He is still making mistakes by using sources from people with hidden twisted agenda.

    His map is not about Yamnaya but the Steppes. And there IS a correlation between the Steppes admixture AND Y-DNA hg. like N1c1 & Q.

    Goga19-10-16, 19:14
    Absolutely crazy, no way to deal with it, if I have understood well Gedrosia was the actual Chalco_Iran component… but it is near to absent in the steppe.

    Very simple. Modern European Steppe folks (like Russians) have NOTHING to do with the ancient Iranic Central Asian Steppe folks. Only the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks were full of Gedrosia. While modern Eastern Europeans don’t have that admixture, sicne Eastern Europeans have nothing in common with the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks. The only common thing between ancient Indo-Iranized tribes and modern day Eastern Europeans is the Steppes admixture.

    Those ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks are now Turkified and speak Turkic language as their native language and do consider themselves as Turks/Tatars.

    With other words. Eastern Europeans (Balto-Slavs) are NOT directly related to Indo-Iranized cultures in the Steppes. And those ancient Indo-Iranized folks of the Steppes are now native Turkic/Tatar people of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan.

    Those Shintashta/Androno Steppes folks who were once Indo-IRANIZED by people (Aryans) from the Iranian Plateau were later Turkified and those Indo-Iranized Steppe cultures became Tatars/Turks.

    Kristiina20-10-16, 14:53
    Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE Jaakko Häkkinen who has given the most recent dating for different protolanguage levels based on linguistic criteria does not propose that Proto-Uralic is dated 2000 BCE.

    In his model pre-Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralic is dated between 3500 and 2800. The late Proto-Uralic is dated 2300 BC. However, the early history is quite blurred and the time margins are wide, but, by 2000 BC, Proto-Uralic had probably already disintegrated.

    Lubię to

  2. http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-15

    Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age

    Chunxiang Li, Hongjie Li, Yinqiu Cui, Chengzhi Xie, Dawei Cai, Wenying Li, Victor H Mair, Zhi Xu, Quanchao Zhang, Idelisi Abuduresule, Li Jin, Hong Zhu and Hui ZhouEmail author

    BMC Biology20108:15
    DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-8-15
    © Li et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

    Received: 21 September 2009
    Accepted: 17 February 2010
    Published: 17 February 2010

    Abstract

    Background
    The Tarim Basin, located on the ancient Silk Road, played a very important role in the history of human migration and cultural communications between the West and the East. However, both the exact period at which the relevant events occurred and the origins of the people in the area remain very obscure. In this paper, we present data from the analyses of both Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) derived from human remains excavated from the Xiaohe cemetery, the oldest archeological site with human remains discovered in the Tarim Basin thus far.

    Results
    Mitochondrial DNA analysis showed that the Xiaohe people carried both the East Eurasian haplogroup (C) and the West Eurasian haplogroups (H and K), whereas Y chromosomal DNA analysis revealed only the West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1a in the male individuals.

    Conclusion
    Our results demonstrated that the Xiaohe people were an admixture from populations originating from both the West and the East, implying that the Tarim Basin had been occupied by an admixed population since the early Bronze Age. To our knowledge, this is the earliest genetic evidence of an admixed population settled in the Tarim Basin. (…)

    Table 3 Analysis strategy of the samples.

    Sample

    MtDNA-HVRI

    MtDNA

    Y chromosome

    Sexing

    Independent

    No.

    haplotype

    haplogroup

    haplogroup

    Morphological

    Molecular

    repetition

    100

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    102

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    106

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    107

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    Female

    109

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    110

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    111

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    115

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    117

    223-304

    M*

    Female

    Female

    119

    93-134-224-311-390

    K

    Female

    Female

    120

    189-192-311

    R*

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    121

    183-189-192-311

    R*

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    127

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    128

    260

    H

    Female

    Female

    131

    189-192-311-390

    R*

    Female

    Female

    132

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    135

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    136

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    138

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    139

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

     

    Lubię to

Skomentuj

Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Facebook photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Google+ photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google+. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Connecting to %s