„Bečko-berlinska škola” vs novoromantičari

[KARPOSH_77]

Jel ima srpski prevod ovog predavanja Vladimira Lamanskog

https://www.prlib.ru/en/item/863708

 

[cronnin]

Pa procitaj ovu Alinejevu hipotezu i sam zakljuci. Alinei koristi kulturno-jezicke dokaze. Znaci najvazniji dokaz po njemu je jezik Slovena.

У реду ово су ваљда неки главни моменти:

1. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings - the Western and the Eastern - shares different features with Southern Slavic.

Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.


2. I fail to see, then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion that involves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity, without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case of underestimation of one’s own science.

3. Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following the traditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved also the Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there has been a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards.

 

[KARPOSH_77]

У реду ово су ваљда неки главни моменти:

1. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings - the Western and the Eastern - shares different features with Southern Slavic.

Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.


2. I fail to see, then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion that involves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity, without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case of underestimation of one’s own science.

3. Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following the traditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved also the Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there has been a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards.

Da, to je osnovno.
Meni je isto bilo interesantno:

“The diagnostic value of the etymological semantic change from Slav to slave” (poglavlje) kao dokaz njegove teorije.

Isto, diskusija o stavovima Olega Trubaceva (po kome je Dunav pradomovina Slovena), ali Alinei predlaze”
“Extension to South of the Proto Slavonic homeland” (poglavlje)

Isto Alinei, direktno kaze da je Vincanska kultura “identifiable with Southern Slavic”

 

[Q. in perpetuum hibernum]

У реду ово су ваљда неки главни моменти:

1. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings - the Western and the Eastern - shares different features with Southern Slavic.

Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.


2. I fail to see, then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion that involves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity, without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case of underestimation of one’s own science.

3. Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following the traditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved also the Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there has been a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards.

Ne shvatam ovo pod br. 1. Zar nemaju i južni i istočni isto tako elemente sa zapadnim?

 

[KARPOSH_77]

Ne shvatam ovo pod br. 1. Zar nemaju i južni i istočni isto tako elemente sa zapadnim?

Najbolje je sam da procitas (postavio sam link ranije).

"Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian andBulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (includingRussian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares different features with Southern Slavic.
An adequate theory of Slavic ethnogenesis will have to provide a satisfactory and coherent explanation for these three fundamental aspects of Slavic: (1) enormous extension, (2) extraordinary homogeneity, and (3) areal asymmetry between South and North"

 

[cronnin]

Ne shvatam ovo pod br. 1. Zar nemaju i južni i istočni isto tako elemente sa zapadnim?

Конвенционално смо учили да се дели на источну, јужну и западну грану. Требало би озбиљно познавање славистике да бисмо могли да расправљамо да ли је тачна тј. реална његова (или одакле је већ преузета теза) подела на северну (која се после дели на источну и западну) и јужну грану.

Ако претпоставимо да је тачна, онда би требало да група лингвиста седне и десетак година преправља постојећи модел развоја словенских језика. Ако нам дају изводљив модел, онда је то већ други озбиљан ударац у исто место.

 

[KARPOSH_77]

Конвенционално смо учили да се дели на источну, јужну и западну грану. Требало би озбиљно познавање славистике да бисмо могли да расправљамо да ли је тачна тј. реална његова (или одакле је већ преузета теза) подела на северну (која се после дели на источну и западну) и јужну грану.

Ако претпоставимо да је тачна, онда би требало да група лингвиста седне и десетак година преправља постојећи модел развоја словенских језика. Ако нам дају изводљив модел, онда је то већ други озбиљан ударац у исто место.

E pa tu je najveci problem. Alinei je izneo svoju teoriju pre vise od 20 (dvadeset) godina. Gde su analize njegove teorije od srpskih zvanicnjih istoricara / lingvista. Jel ima neki rad sa Beogradskog fakulteta koji se bavi njegovim pretpostavkama, tvrdnjama, i nalazima. Ili opet po obicaju, zvanicni istoricari/istrazivaci samo cute i ne rade nista korisno.

 

[Carlin15]

Nonsense on Slavic origins

URL:
https://www.christopherculver.com/languages/nonsense-on-slavonic-origins.html


Someone made an addition to the Wikipedia article on the Slavonic languages about the ‘recent discovery’ that the Slavs were indigenous to Southern Europe. The citation for the matter was a paper by one Mario Alinei with the rather wordy title Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis. I have not read such silliness in some time.

Mr Alinei’s main thrust is that the Indo-European languages did not come about after the wide migration of Proto-Indo-European farmers (like in Renfrew) or horsemen (like in Mallory) in relatively recent history, but rather came to Europe with the first humans wandering out of Africa. He does not seem to be bothered by the fact that language changes so quickly that the languages of Europe could not have been seen as descendent of a common language if they were much older than they are. This paper is clearly crackpottery. The author seems to think that the theory of an invasion by horsemen was successful only due to the power of Nazi Germany, when the theory had been proposed decades before. We get nonsense like the following to suggest that languages are incapable of innovating new pronouns; the Japanese, who get new ones every couple of hundred years, would be astonished:

Whichever theory one chooses on the origins of IE languages, cognate grammatical words, such as the pronominal forms for‘I’ and ‘me’, common to all IE languages, should now be considered as to belong to the origins of Homo loquens, and thus to Paleolithic: for they can only represent the awakening of individual conscience. Otherwise, we would have to assume a ‘new’ discovery of human EGO either in Neolithic or in the Copper Age, a hypothesis that does not deserve a serious discussion.

He seems to have no idea that in classical times the Balkans north of Greece were inhabitated by two peoples, the Dacians, and Thracians, who spoke an Indo-European language wiped out by Roman colonisation but leaving influences in Albanian and Romanian. Really, he seems totally ignorant of this:

What and where would the pre-Indo-European substrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia? Unless we associate this late migration [of the Slavs] to a gigantic genocide a phantascientific hypothesis this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientific thinking.

The Slavs were not responsible for a ‘genocide’ of the indigenous peoples, but their language had been whittled away by Roman colonisation. When the Slavs arrived, they didn’t meet the Dacians, but rather the Romanians and contributed to their lexicon considerably, as heartwarmingly explored here before.

A similar mistake occurs in his reasoning that because the Slavs were in the Carpathian basin before the arrival of the Magyars, then they must have been there forever: Hungarian place names, in Pannonia and on the Tisza, are Slavic, as J. Stanislav has demonstrated (idem, 228).

The Slavs aren’t merely indigenous to Southern Europe, but they also had contacts with Latin, says Mr Alinei in a stomach-turning bit beginning with The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav. *gospodĭ, Latin favere ~ Slav. *goveti)…

Re-evaluating the issue of Slavic origins seems fashionable these days. Florin Curta in his The Making of the Slavs (published by no less a respectable source than Cambridge University Press) asserts that the idea of a Slavic people was a fanciful invention of the Byzantines, that historical linguists are charlatans not to be trusted, and that the Slavonic languages are not even Indo-European. I fail to see why the standard model of Slavs being pushed out of modern-day Ukraine and Belarus by marauding Turkic and Gothic peoples is not longer believable for these people.

 

[Pantelić Nebojša]

Srbi staroevropska y-hg I (I1, I2) i mtDNA hg H, su srpski (originalni staroevropski jezik) od koga su prvo nastali slovenski/sanskrit jezici, zatim kasnije vestackim delovanjem su od slovenskih stvoreni germanski i latinski/romanski jezici.

Kako nizak, gadan i smrdljiv tekst " Re-evaluating the issue of Slavic origins seems fashionable these days."
Jedina stvar koja je u modi oduvek do danas je unistavanje slovena i falsifikovanje lazna istorija Srba-slovena-evropljana.
Danas uz pomoc nauke prava istina i prava istorija izlazi na videlo.

 

[KARPOSH_77]

Nonsense on Slavic origins

URL:
https://www.christopherculver.com/languages/nonsense-on-slavonic-origins.html


Someone made an addition to the Wikipedia article on the Slavonic languages about the ‘recent discovery’ that the Slavs were indigenous to Southern Europe. The citation for the matter was a paper by one Mario Alinei with the rather wordy title Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis. I have not read such silliness in some time.

Mr Alinei’s main thrust is that the Indo-European languages did not come about after the wide migration of Proto-Indo-European farmers (like in Renfrew) or horsemen (like in Mallory) in relatively recent history, but rather came to Europe with the first humans wandering out of Africa. He does not seem to be bothered by the fact that language changes so quickly that the languages of Europe could not have been seen as descendent of a common language if they were much older than they are. This paper is clearly crackpottery. The author seems to think that the theory of an invasion by horsemen was successful only due to the power of Nazi Germany, when the theory had been proposed decades before. We get nonsense like the following to suggest that languages are incapable of innovating new pronouns; the Japanese, who get new ones every couple of hundred years, would be astonished:


He seems to have no idea that in classical times the Balkans north of Greece were inhabitated by two peoples, the Dacians, and Thracians, who spoke an Indo-European language wiped out by Roman colonisation but leaving influences in Albanian and Romanian. Really, he seems totally ignorant of this:


The Slavs were not responsible for a ‘genocide’ of the indigenous peoples, but their language had been whittled away by Roman colonisation. When the Slavs arrived, they didn’t meet the Dacians, but rather the Romanians and contributed to their lexicon considerably, as heartwarmingly explored here before.

A similar mistake occurs in his reasoning that because the Slavs were in the Carpathian basin before the arrival of the Magyars, then they must have been there forever: Hungarian place names, in Pannonia and on the Tisza, are Slavic, as J. Stanislav has demonstrated (idem, 228).

The Slavs aren’t merely indigenous to Southern Europe, but they also had contacts with Latin, says Mr Alinei in a stomach-turning bit beginning with The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav. *gospodĭ, Latin favere ~ Slav. *goveti)…

Re-evaluating the issue of Slavic origins seems fashionable these days. Florin Curta in his The Making of the Slavs (published by no less a respectable source than Cambridge University Press) asserts that the idea of a Slavic people was a fanciful invention of the Byzantines, that historical linguists are charlatans not to be trusted, and that the Slavonic languages are not even Indo-European. I fail to see why the standard model of Slavs being pushed out of modern-day Ukraine and Belarus by marauding Turkic and Gothic peoples is not longer believable for these people.

Jasno je sta Englezi misle o Slovenima, i sta njihovi “naucnici” tipa Noel Malcom rade. Podrzavaju jednu geopolitiku koja traje bar 200 godina. Trazi se zvanican stav srpskih istoricara o Alineju.

 

[Pantelić Nebojša]

Rasani (Rasciani) "etrurci", Wendi, Veneti, "fenicani" su Srbi stari evropljani.

 

[Pantelić Nebojša]

" By the ancient peoples of Europe the most important god was always a male god. By contrast in some regions the main god was female: in this regions where living Venetic people. Reitia is the goddess of the key and her sacred animals are wolf and duck; she was worshipped not only in High Adria but also in Retia, today Tirol (Austria), and in Retia Secunda or Vindelicia today lower Germany (Bayern). In Baltic region, between East Germany and Poland (Srbi), the main goddess was Razivia; in the lake of Bled, in Slovenia, they say was worshipped Ziva (Jiva). Homer tell us that the Veneti were coming from the Paflagonia, Northern region of Anatolia, and in Paflagonia the main god was Cybele: Cybele is called Rea and by the way in the near island of Samotracia was present a goddess called Retia, wife of the Northern god Apollo."
Vinca (stari Srbi) - matrijarhat.

 

[Q. in perpetuum hibernum]

u stvari, ti kazes da on - LAZE...posto i takva mogucnost postoji, opet moram da se fokusiram na tvoj perfidni nacin diskreditacije sagovornika ili nekog izvora....covjek kaze da je licno nesto iskopao, obradio i opisao....i datirao....tu nema mjesta za lupetanje - ili LAZE ili je tako bilo...

Da, da; lažovčina je u vezi barem nekih stvari. Lupetanje gluposti je, takođe, sasvim korektan termin.

Ono što ne možda najsmješnije jeste što on očekuje da mu se poveruje da je brucošima (!!!) davano da kopaju i pišu izveštaje radi objavljivanja u zvaničnom kapacitetu. Tako da to što je rekao u osnovi ne može biti istina. A drugi i to prilično jasni je indikator to što je manje-više sve detalje pogrešno, za nešto u čemu je navodno lično učestvovao.

 

[Q. in perpetuum hibernum]

Ja, ono u šta se ne razumem, u to se i ne mešam, da tako kažem.

Камо среће да је то истина.

Kada gledaš ovo između redova, vidiš da je to prasrpski:

 

[Kole11]

Na zalost mnogih, Budimir takodje misli da postoje etrursko-slovenske lingvisticke veze

 

[Q. in perpetuum hibernum]

Na zalost mnogih, Budimir takodje misli da postoje etrursko-slovenske lingvisticke veze

Pogledajte prilog 738862

Mogu da ti prilično decidno kažem da Mrki definitivno nije to imao na umu.

 

[Kole11]

Mogu da ti prilično decidno kažem da Mrki definitivno nije to imao na umu.

Neznam sta je Mrki imao na umu ali etrursko slovenske lingvisticke veze postoje na zalost mnogih, kaze Budimir

 

[Q. in perpetuum hibernum]

Neznam sta je Mrki imao na umu ali etrursko slovenske lingvisticke veze postoje na zalost mnogih, kaze Budimir

Radenković, preciznije.

Jesi li pogledao moje objave na Krcunovoj temi, kad si već kod njega?

 

[Kole11]

Jel ima srpski prevod ovog predavanja Vladimira Lamanskog

https://www.prlib.ru/en/item/863708

Njega u Rusiji zovu veliki Lamanski, i on je obelezje ruske nauke 19. veka. Nazalost moraces da naucis ruski da bi citao Lamanskog, ja sam ucio ruski osam godina u skoli
Inace, njegovi nalazi o balkansko anadolskom poreklu Slovena su apsolutno identicni nalazima Budimira. Dakle imamo dva nezavisna istrazivanja, jedno lingvisticko i drugo analizom istorijskih izvora koji su dali identicne rezultate.

I naravno zajednicka karakteristika, obojica su ignorisani od mejn strima. I ti ocekujes da neko prevede Lamanskog a jedna priznata velicina kao sto je Budimir uopste nije citirana u Srbiji

 

[Q. in perpetuum hibernum]

Njega u Rusiji zovu veliki Lamanski, i on je obelezje ruske nauke 19. veka. Nazalost moraces da naucis ruski da bi citao Lamanskog, ja sam ucio ruski osam godina u skoli
Inace, njegovi nalazi o balkansko anadolskom poreklu Slovena su apsolutno identicni nalazima Budimira. Dakle imamo dva nezavisna istrazivanja, jedno lingvisticko i drugo analizom istorijskih izvora koji su dali identicne rezultate.

I naravno zajednicka karakteristika, obojica su ignorisani od mejn strima. I ti ocekujes da neko prevede Lamanskog a jedna priznata velicina kao sto je Budimir uopste nije citirana u Srbiji

Budimirov udžbenik za istoriju rimske književnosti koristi se na fakultetima. Njegova zbirka tekstova koristi se za učenje latinskog jezika. Takođe i njegov udžbenik za učene starogrčkog jezika. Na njegove radove stalno se osvrće u studijama antike; jedan istoričar objavio je ne tako davno i doktorsku disertaciju posvećenu proučavanju njegovog lika i dela. Slao sam ti doktorat na drugoj temi...jedna klasičarka objavila je i magistarsku tezu sa nešto užom temom: Paleobalkanistička istraživanja Milana Budimira.

I, na kraju krajeva, Budimirov nastavljač, Aleksandar Loma, profesor na Filozofskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, redovno ga citira. Tako da je potpuno apsurdno tvrditi da Budimir uopšte nije citirana ličnost u Srbiji.

 

[Pantelić Nebojša]

Ovo je interesantno, treba otvoriti posebnu temu sa Srpski Egipat. Jer tu ima nekih znacajnih paralela. Recimo Srbija se nekad zvala Mezija, a Egipar Mezir. Pa onda ima ono Srpsko blato u Egitu (eng. Serbonian bog). Pa onda sad i piramide i kod nas i tamo.
Pa onda okle srpska rijec za krokodila, od srpksog krak ili korak hodilo? Ima tu interesantnih stvari.

Genetska ispitivanja skeleta sa groblja iz starog Egipta (rana dinastija) kacio sam tu studiju vise puta, zakljucuje da su stari Egipcani delimicno srodni danasnjim Egipcanima, jednim delom nesrodni danasnjim Egipcanima, i najsrodniji tj. gotovo identicni evropljanima i to posebno centralna evropa, Slovenci i Makedonci, znaci kruze kao kisa oko Kragujevca. Najblizi genetski Srbima su Makedonci i Slovenci, Srbi su bas izmedju.
Rec djed, piramide na Sardiniji gde je najveca koncentracija srpske genetike, piramide u Kurdistanu/Mesopotamiji gde je najveca koncentracija srpske genetike van evrope.

 

[cronnin]

E pa tu je najveci problem. Alinei je izneo svoju teoriju pre vise od 20 (dvadeset) godina. Gde su analize njegove teorije od srpskih zvanicnjih istoricara / lingvista. Jel ima neki rad sa Beogradskog fakulteta koji se bavi njegovim pretpostavkama, tvrdnjama, i nalazima. Ili opet po obicaju, zvanicni istoricari/istrazivaci samo cute i ne rade nista korisno.

Ја се са тиме одавно слажем и тврдим да је баш њиховo забијање главе у песак и узроковало појаву "деретићевске" екипе. Они су им тако дали простора. Исто се дешава са антивакцерима који имају легитимне приговоре на важећу праксу, док се струка понаша идентично као и ова горепоменута - охоло, недодирљиво, монолитно и бенефицирано.

https://forum.krstarica.com/threads...novoromanticari.486173/page-538#post-35215331

 

[Kole11]

Требало би озбиљно познавање славистике да бисмо могли да расправљамо да ли је тачна тј. реална његова (или одакле је већ преузета теза) подела на северну (која се после дели на источну и западну) и јужну грану.

Nedavno je bilo postavljeno genetsko istrazivanje sa identicnim rezultatima. Severni (zapadni i istocni) i juzni Sloveni genetski gledano, nidje veze

Budimirov udžbenik za istoriju rimske književnosti koristi se na fakultetima. Njegova zbirka tekstova koristi se za učenje latinskog jezika. Takođe i njegov udžbenik za učene starogrčkog jezika. Na njegove radove stalno se osvrće u studijama antike; jedan istoričar objavio je ne tako davno i doktorsku disertaciju posvećenu proučavanju njegovog lika i dela. Slao sam ti doktorat na drugoj temi...jedna klasičarka objavila je i magistarsku tezu sa nešto užom temom: Paleobalkanistička istraživanja Milana Budimira.

I, na kraju krajeva, Budimirov nastavljač, Aleksandar Loma, profesor na Filozofskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, redovno ga citira. Tako da je potpuno apsurdno tvrditi da Budimir uopšte nije citirana ličnost u Srbiji.

Mani me ovih tralala radova, pisanih samo da bi se ispunila kvota, neznam kako je smogla snage da napise da Aleksandar znaci medjedovic. Budimir je poznat kao autohtonista, gde je bre rad koji analizira Budimirovu teoriju o poreklu Slovena, onako kako ga je Radenkovic analizirao?

Normalan covek nezna kako da nastavi Budimirova istrazivanja u atmosferi linca i ismevanja. Normalan naucnik nema mogucnosti da radi jer je u strahu da ce biti omalovazen i prognan. E to je nasledje atmosfere koja postoji u sadasnjoj akademskoj zajednici kojoj i ti pripadas i zdusno je branis.

 

[Pantelić Nebojša]

" . Severni (zapadni i istocni) i juzni Sloveni genetski gledano, nidje veze "
Ufff, sve si dobro pisao do sad, al sad ga lupi.
Postavi tu studiju ako mozes, da se ne siri zlonamerna zabluda da Srbi nisu srodni slovenima, mozda te buni poreklo po muskoj liniji y-hromozom haplogrupa sto nije isto kao svaukupna genetika.
Prosecan Poljak ima oko 85% iste genetike sa prosecnim Srbinom (autosomalno, y-hg i mtdna-hg, sveukupna genetika), Cesi i Slovaci oko 90%.
Svi sloveni su ekstra blisko srodni sa Srbima.

 

[Q. in perpetuum hibernum]

Mani me ovih tralala radova, pisanih samo da bi se ispunila kvota, neznam kako je smogla snage da napise da Aleksandar znaci medjedovic. Budimir je poznat kao autohtonista, gde je bre rad koji analizira Budimirovu teoriju o poreklu Slovena, onako kako ga je Radenkovic analizirao?

Pogledajte prilog 738932

Normalan covek nezna kako da nastavi Budimirova istrazivanja u atmosferi linca i ismevanja. Normalan naucnik nema mogucnosti da radi jer je u strahu da ce biti omalovazen i prognan. E to je nasledje atmosfere koja postoji u sadasnjoj akademskoj zajednici kojoj i ti pripadas i zdusno je branis.

Ja mislim da ti treba da zasedneš i pažljivo se sa Budimirovim likom i delom upoznaš i sam, jer bih se kladio da si stekao o njemu prilično pogrešnu sliku.

Evo ti jednog citata iz Radenkovićeve disertacije, a koji je zapravo citat Franje Barišića, koga si ako se dobro sećam takođe svojevremeno kao pozitivni primer isticao:

професор Будимир изнео и убедљиве доказе „да је анадолско-словенска језичка веза постојала још у првој половини првог миленијума пре наше ере и, према томе, да је појава словенских Индоевропљана као посебне етнолингвистичке групе знатно ранија него што се обично узима. Упоредо са радом на овом проблему, проф. Будимир улази и у решавање питања географског смештаја најстарије словенске заједнице, постижући резултате којима се обеснажују досадашње нордистичке тезе о Средњој Европи као словенској прадомовини и утврђује да колевку Словена треба тражити у закарпатским областима.

I šta onda radi površno čitanje? Zalepi nepažljivog čitaoca za sintagmu balkansko-anadolsko. To je najbolji primer izvlačenja iz konteksta.

Kako Radenković tvrdi, najznačajniji nastavljač Budimirovog dela je Aleksandar Loma. Navodi eksplicitno i devet naučnih radova kojima je Loma nastavio Budimirovim stopama.

Ипак са лингвистичког аспекта проучавања Словена и њихове прапостојбине најзначајнији настављач Будимировог рада је Александар Лома који је објавио већи број радова у којима се бави пореклом, географским смештајем и језичким проблемима старих Словена. Његови најпознатији радови из ове области су:
* Позајмљенице из непознатог језика у прасловенском
* Podunavska prapostojbina Slovena: legenda ili istorijska realnost?
* Illyricum slavicum. Das erste Halbjahrtausend des Slaventums auf dem nordwestlichen Balkan im Lichte der Ortsnamenkunde
* Неки славистички аспекти српске етногенезе
* „Дрвоједи“
* Mundartliche Gliederung des späten Urslavischen und frühe slavische Stammesbildungen. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die sorbisch–serbischen Isolexen
* Skythische Lehnwörterim Slavischen Versuchei Problemstellung
* Пракосово. Словенски и индоевропски корени српске епике
* Евроазијски степски појас као чинилац језичке и културне прошлости Словена
У великом броју закључака Ломини и Будимирови ставови се у потпуности поклапају, нарочито везано за порекло и географски смештај старих Словена, али и за разна језичка питања и порекла разних речи које су најчешће из старијих прелазила у словенске језике.

Pretpostavljam da si ti takođe pogrešno protumačio Radenkovićevо nordistička teorija možda kao ovo tzv. bečko-berlinska škola. Ne, to se odnosi na tezu nordijske škole po kojoj bi protoindoevropska pradomovina trebalo da se nalazi na području Skandinavije i nizija severne Nemačke. I da, samim time, sa severnijih područj treba navodno tražiti i Protoslovene.